The seven facts a sign-off needs
- The project, deliverable, and stable asset identifier.
- The exact preview or file version the client reviewed.
- A plain disclosure of which parts were AI generated or AI manipulated.
- The scope of review, including creative, brand, rights, legal, or technical approval where applicable.
- The decision: approved, approved with conditions, changes requested, or rejected.
- The approver's name or account and the decision time.
- Any condition, exception, territory, channel, or expiry attached to the approval.
A usable approval sequence
- Freeze the candidate version and calculate or store its stable identifier.
- Show the work with the AI-use statement and the evidence relevant to the agreed review.
- Ask a bounded question that names the asset and decision being requested.
- Capture comments as structured change requests rather than editing the original decision.
- Record the final decision and the approver's authority or role.
- If a material edit follows, create a new version and request a new approval.
Approval wording that stays unambiguous
A useful request reads: “Please review asset BTW-042, version 7, file hash ending 91af. The background and transition were generated with AI; the product packshot and typography were supplied and composited by the studio. Approval covers creative and brand use for the campaign channels listed below. It does not constitute legal clearance of third-party rights.”
The client can then approve that bounded statement, approve with conditions, or request changes. This is more useful than asking whether the project ‘looks good’, because it preserves both the reviewed object and the meaning of the answer.
Where sign-off commonly breaks
| Weak record | Failure | Stronger record |
|---|---|---|
| ‘Approved’ in chat | No durable asset or version link | Decision attached to an immutable version ID |
| Link to a replaceable preview | The reviewed content can change | Frozen review artifact plus file identifier |
| AI use mentioned elsewhere | Approval scope is unclear | Disclosure displayed with the reviewed version |
| One approval before later edits | Final delivery was never reviewed | New approval after material changes |
| Producer approves for client | Authority is unclear | Named approver and recorded role |
What approval does not prove
Client approval does not establish that every source was licensed, that every disclosure duty was satisfied, or that the work is free of third-party claims. It shows what a named reviewer accepted within a stated scope. Rights review, provenance evidence, and publication disclosure remain separate records and decisions.
Frequently asked questions
Is an email approval enough?
It can be useful evidence if the email identifies the exact asset version and approval scope. A generic reply to a replaceable link is much weaker. Preserve the message with the reviewed version and relevant disclosure rather than keeping it only in an inbox.
What counts as a material change after approval?
Treat any change that could affect the client's creative, brand, rights, disclosure, or technical decision as material. Cropping for a pre-approved format may not require full review; replacing generated content, references, claims, or intended usage normally does.
Can one approval cover a batch of assets?
Yes, when the approval explicitly lists the assets and versions and the reviewer can inspect them. Do not let a broad project approval silently absorb later files that were not part of the reviewed batch.