Use an agreed reference export with visible version identity and a clear time-reference convention. I would ask reviewers to identify both the file and the frame or time range. A timestamp without a version can send an editor to the wrong moment after the cut changes.
On this page
Our recommendation
I recommend one agreed review reference at a time with explicit version and time conventions. Preserve clean delivery assets separately and verify the final change in the new reference export.
Define the reference before sending
Record the export version, duration, frame rate and whether feedback uses elapsed time, programme timecode or a platform player clock. These are not always interchangeable. A review file starting at programme hour one can display a different number from a player counting from zero.
Use a burn-in or other agreed reference where it helps, without covering information the reviewer needs. Keep the clean deliverable separate from the review copy. Confirm that the review platform has not substituted a different version or changed the visible timing convention.
Make comments actionable
Ask for a range and a concrete observation: the word, title, transition or object that needs attention. Keep creative preference distinct from an objective defect. If a reviewer pauses between frames or reports only whole seconds, use the description to identify the intended event.
When a new cut moves material, carry feedback forward deliberately rather than assuming old timestamps still apply. Keep resolved comments tied to the version reviewed. A short change log is more useful than a growing collection of similarly named exports.
A useful note
“Review v07, elapsed 00:42–00:44: the lower title covers the speaker’s name.” This identifies the version, time convention, range and issue. “Fix the title at 42” does not establish whether 42 means seconds, frames, a comment number or a different edit.
Before you act
- Identify the file version and time convention.
- Use a range plus a concrete visual or audio observation.
- Reconcile old comments after a cut changes timing.
Use the Delivery workbook to apply the guide to your own setup.
Keep exploring
Method note: this is an original planning procedure with illustrative inputs. It does not report a physical product test. Check the exact product, edition and official instructions before acting.
Build on what you just learned
Your next useful step.
Organize, relink and restore with confidence.
Upgrade to Resolve 21 with a project-copy acceptance test
I would upgrade a working editing system only after preserving a recoverable project library and testing a representative project copy.
Read the guide →
Resolve 21 IntelliSearch: budget the analysis before relying on search
I would test IntelliSearch on a representative media subset and keep a conventional folder and logging system alongside it.
Read the guide →