The first video edit is in review. A stakeholder asks for a new opening, the customer corrects a date and Sales requests a second language version. All three arrive as comments, but they represent different work.
A change-request log helps you decide what to do after a scope has been agreed. It does not replace that agreement or declare every comment chargeable. It connects the request with the existing deliverable, the evidence, the work required and a decision the authorised client contact can make.
Write down the starting agreement
Link the accepted brief and identify the version being reviewed. Record the deliverables, review arrangement, known dependencies and person authorised to agree a commercial change. If those details are still disputed, resolve them before describing an addition as out of scope.
Keep corrections visible. A writer’s unsupported statement should not become acceptable because a revision limit has been reached. Equally, a new interview, translation or asset may involve work that the original proposal did not include. Discuss that work explicitly instead of hiding it in an edit round.
The video production brief is a useful starting record. For a written case study, use the same principle with the agreed article, supporting material and review responsibilities.
A completed post-agreement log
Fictional exercise: a video agency has agreed one horizontal customer story, one vertical extract and two consolidated editorial review rounds. The table records requests after delivery of edit 1. It is an invented project, not a report of client work.
| Request | Agreement and evidence check | Work decision | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct the rollout month at 00:42 | Source interview confirms the editor used the wrong month | Correct the error and check related captions | Accepted; included correction |
| Begin with the existing explanation at 01:05 | Same footage and agreed audience; first review round remains open | Reorder the opening and adjust the transition | Accepted within round 1 |
| Add a Spanish-language version | Only English delivery was agreed; translation and review are not assigned | Prepare a separate option with translation, subtitle and approval tasks | Awaiting client decision; not started |
| Replace the customer with a second interviewee | Would require another interview and materially different story | Pause this request and clarify whether the project is changing | Not authorised; current edit continues |
Notice that the log contains a genuine choice. The Spanish version is neither silently absorbed nor automatically refused. The client receives a defined option and can decide whether it is worth commissioning.
Ask for an actionable comment
“It doesn’t feel right” can begin a discussion, but the editor still needs to understand the issue. Ask which moment, audience concern or factual point needs attention. Separate a preference about pacing from a change to the meaning of the customer’s account.
For video, identify the reviewed version and timecode. Adobe’s Frame.io review tutorial demonstrates time-linked comments and versioned review. A review tool can locate feedback; it cannot decide whether the requested work belongs in the commercial scope.
For written work, use a section, paragraph or claim identifier. Preserve the requested wording and the reason for the change. If comments arrive across email, calls and a review link, consolidate them into one decision record rather than leaving the editor to resolve contradictions alone.
Price the additional work, not the frustration
When a request adds work, describe that work plainly. The fictional Spanish option needs translation, a bilingual accuracy review, subtitle timing, a new export and approval of the final language version. An additional runtime alone would not capture the effort.
Estimate those tasks using your own rates and capacity. Explain whether the existing delivery date can hold and which inputs the client must supply. Do not invent an industry surcharge or claim that all agencies charge for the same request. The project cost sheet shows how to make the assumptions visible.
Give the client an option that preserves the original project where possible: finish the agreed English version now, then commission the additional language version separately. Record the answer before the team starts the extra work.
Protect the customer’s meaning during revisions
A request to “make the result stronger” needs an evidence check. If the proposed headline generalises a limited example or turns an estimate into a measured result, send it back to the source material.
In the fictional project, the customer described one site’s handover process. A new headline claiming the same outcome across every site would exceed that account. The writer proposes a narrower heading or asks for separate supporting evidence. The change log records the factual boundary, rather than presenting it as a stylistic disagreement.
Use the evidence register for the source and the approval map for who can decide. Commercial approval of extra work does not verify the factual claim inside it.
Close the loop on the delivered version
Each accepted request needs an owner, a completion check and the version where it was resolved. Each declined or deferred request needs its reason and next step. Keep the earlier review version so a later comment can be understood in context.
When the final files are handed over, list which requests they include. Leave the uncommissioned Spanish version clearly separate. A useful change log makes the next decision easier for both sides; it should not become an argument that every new idea is a problem.