When two reviewers ask for incompatible changes, do not forward both as instructions. Keep their comments, identify the decision that needs to be made and ask the person authorized by your brand to settle it. Then send the creator one agreed direction, with unresolved items clearly held apart.
Separate collecting comments from making the decision
A feedback coordinator can gather notes and send a clear message without having authority to settle every disagreement. Before the review, agree who can decide the creative question and who must confirm factual information. Use the actual responsibility assigned by the brand, not an assumption based on who spoke last or has the loudest opinion.
In his Frame.io Insider guide, freelance editor Jonny Elwyn describes waiting while clients resolve conflicting requests and recommends involving the person with ultimate sign-off early. This is practitioner advice about collaboration, not evidence of guaranteed savings. The manual record below is our own way of applying that principle.
Start with the same reviewed file and agreed brief. The related delivery-review guide covers evaluating the file and writing timestamped notes. Here the problem is what the brand decides before those notes become an instruction. Keep original comments visible internally so the reason for choosing a direction is not lost.
Example: two comments on a desk-lamp demonstration
This is a fictional planning exercise, not a customer project or a tested edit. Assume the brief requires a clear view of fitting the lamp shade. One reviewer wants larger opening text; another says the proposed text position would hide that required action. A separate suggestion asks for a newly filmed evening scene. No footage was produced for this example.
Fictional internal decision record for lamp-demo-v1.mp4
Scroll sideways to see all columns.
| Decision question | Original comments or missing information | Recorded outcome |
|---|---|---|
| How should the opening text coexist with the fitting action? | Reviewer A: “Make the opening text larger.” Reviewer B: “Keep the shade fitting visible; that placement covers it.” | The person authorized to decide the creative direction chooses to preserve the required action. Ask for readable text that does not cover it; ask the creator to confirm a workable treatment before assuming one fits. |
| Should a new evening scene be commissioned? | One reviewer wants an evening setting. The team has not agreed its purpose, and it is outside the current shot plan. | Held: the decision owner must clarify the purpose first. Do not include it as work to perform. If pursued, discuss scope, timing and any price change with the creator before agreement. |
The first outcome does not declare the larger-text request wrong. It records the requirement that constrains the solution and the feasibility question still for the creator. The second outcome is intentionally not a compromise edit: it remains a separate unresolved proposal. Recording a person as responsible does not prove that person has made a decision; confirm the decision before sending it.
If a disagreement concerns a product claim rather than a creative preference, obtain the relevant verified information. An internal vote cannot make an unsupported claim accurate. Do not ask the creator to choose which factual statement the brand should stand behind.
Send a settled direction, with its limits
After the authorized decision is confirmed, the coordinator can translate it into one message. Keep internal discussion in the internal record; share the relevant reason and requested result with the creator. Do not forward an entire unfiltered debate and call it a final list.
Illustrative outgoing message
File reviewed: lamp-demo-v1.mp4
Agreed direction: keep the shade-fitting action visible. Adjust the opening text so it remains readable without covering that action.
Before editing: confirm the treatment you propose and whether it fits the agreed revision scope and timing.
Keep: the current product demonstration and agreed message.
Held separately: the proposed evening scene is not requested for this revision. We will discuss its purpose and scope before asking for new filming.
Silence from another reviewer is not approval. If the required decision has not arrived, tell the creator exactly which instruction is still pending and agree how that affects the next step. An internal deadline does not by itself extend a contractual deadline or change revision terms. Do not assume the creator can start part of the work independently of the unresolved point.
Retain the reason when the direction changes
Internal decision record
Reviewed file and brief version:
Decision question:
Original comments and who supplied them:
Agreed requirement or evidence:
Feedback coordinator:
Decision owner and confirmed responsibility:
Decision actually confirmed, by whom and when:
Reason for the chosen direction:
Unresolved question and person responsible for answering it:
Instruction sent to the creator and date:
Earlier instruction replaced, if any:
Creator confirmation of scope and next step:
- Preserve the original comments and the confirmed decision; do not erase the disagreement as if it never existed.
- If the decision changes, identify the earlier instruction being replaced and the reason. Ask what work has already been done and agree the effect on scope and timing.
- Keep a proposed extra scene out of the revision list until both parties agree it. A new internal preference is not automatic entitlement to more work.
- Review the next delivery against the instruction that was actually agreed. Resolving an internal comment is separate from accepting a delivered file.
A useful record lets the next reader understand what was decided, who could decide it and what remains open. It does not prove that an edit will perform better. The cover is a conceptual illustration of several inputs and one response, not an actual conversation or approval record.
How this fits UGC Stage
UGC Stage is an application in development connecting brands and UGC creators. Its planned collaboration workflow keeps conversations, references, files and feedback with the project. That context can help retain an agreed instruction beside the material it refers to. Prepare the decision record manually with your current tools; it is not a promised internal approval system, decision-owner permission or automatic conflict detector in UGC Stage. The application is not available yet. Join the brand launch list to hear when it becomes available.
Sources and notes
Practical guidance from the UGC Stage team. Examples are educational, not customer results or income guarantees.
