Separate different kinds of review
A product specialist checks accuracy. A brand reviewer checks voice and identity. A publisher checks the destination, format and timing. Asking everyone to approve everything can create repeated comments and unclear ownership.
Name the required reviewers in the brief. State whether a particular campaign needs additional review because of a new offer, sensitive claim or unfamiliar market. The owner should know when all required decisions are complete.
Attach approval to a complete version
Show the actual image or video, full caption and intended destination together. A reviewer who only sees a thumbnail may miss small text, a wrong offer condition or a mismatch between the visual and the caption.
Give the proposed version a clear identity. If the team replaces the asset after approval, return it to review. A green status on an older version is not evidence that a new version is ready.
Use a review checklist with specific questions
| Review area | Question |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | Can each product and offer claim be supported? |
| Identity | Do the logo, tone and visual rules match this brand? |
| Accessibility | Is the text legible and is supporting text available where needed? |
| Rights | May we use the images, audio and references? |
| Destination | Is the link correct and does the landing page match? |
| Delivery | Are the account, format, timezone and timing correct? |
Make feedback actionable
“This feels wrong” describes a reaction but does not define a revision. A useful comment names the issue, the desired change and its priority. For example: “The headline implies free delivery on every order. Replace it with the exact offer condition from the approved brief.”
Keep preferences separate from required corrections. The campaign owner can resolve a stylistic disagreement; an inaccurate product claim should be corrected before approval.
Set a deadline and an exception path
Work backward from publication and decide how long the reviewer needs. If feedback is late, the owner can move the date, reduce scope or escalate. The process should say who makes that decision.
Avoid an implicit rule that no response means approval. For external client reviews, agree in advance how decisions will be recorded and what types of changes require another check.
Apply the workflow to brand workspaces
MagnutAI’s source includes workspace and collaboration workflows. Validate the actual permissions and review behavior with a small campaign before making it the default process for a client. Access to view an asset should not be assumed to grant permission to publish it.
Start with the agency workflow or marketing-team workflow. Keep an owner for live verification after scheduling, because approval and successful publication are separate outcomes.
Distinguish the types of feedback
| Feedback | What the team needs next |
|---|---|
| A comment | Clarify whether it is a suggestion or a blocking issue. |
| A factual correction | Replace the claim with the approved information and review affected assets. |
| A proposed revision | Have the responsible person accept or reject the change. |
| An approval | Record which version and scope were approved. |
| A rejection | Document the reason and the next action. |
Use a version-aware review process
MagnutAI’s campaign review flow includes comments, proposed revisions, role-based decisions and version history. Share-link roles are distinct from broader workspace membership. Choose the access required for the person reviewing the campaign.
If an approved plan is reopened, check the related exports and queue entries before continuing. A client may approve the overall direction while a specific product claim still needs correction. Make the scope of the decision clear so the publisher can identify the actual approved asset.