Timecoded feedback for AI/CGI video: a register that leads to decisions

Short answer. A useful review item identifies the film version, scene, point or interval, observation, requested outcome and checking reference. Close it against the revised version. After re-editing, keep the issue identifier and map it to the scene's new location; the old timestamp may no longer be sufficient.

This handbook helps a buyer's team review AI/CGI video. It organises existing requirements rather than rewriting the whole brief or estimating the project again. The practical output is a register showing what needs a decision, what has changed and what has actually been accepted.

1. Name the decision for the current review

An animatic can support approval of action and sequence while final materials are absent. A control still can support product inspection but cannot establish movement. An assembled edit reveals relationships that individual shots do not. The review invitation should therefore name its stage and required decisions.

State, for example, that reviewers are checking product placement and scene order, that sound is temporary and that packaging is compared with artwork A05. This distinguishes an unfinished element from an error. Everything is still in progress is too vague to be useful.

Keep observations about later stages as well. An engineer might notice a wrong connector during an editing review. Register the observation with an appropriate state instead of asking the engineer to remember it until another meeting.

2. Identify every review version

At the top of the register, record the filename or version identifier, link and transfer date. Everyone should know which material is under discussion. Latest version stops being meaningful after the next export.

If two exports enter the conversation, identify the current one. Do not discard comments on the earlier version: transfer or close them with a reason. Otherwise, part of the team may work on a resolved issue while others discuss a new cut.

State the purpose of the file too: main film, short edit, vertical adaptation or another language. A shared shot can occupy a different location and perform a different role. A comment on one file should not automatically be applied to the entire delivery package.

3. Pair time references with scene identifiers

The timestamp locates something within one version. A scene identifier helps locate the subject after editing changes. A small project can use simple names: S01 overview, S02 opening, S03 detail and S04 ending.

If a shot appears twice, specify its occurrence: first appearance or repeat before the ending. A short action description also helps, such as the moment when the lid reaches its open position.

Explain the time format in the register. Examples here use minutes and seconds in a particular review file. If frame-level precision is needed, agree how it will be written and displayed. Do not mix different conventions silently in the same column.

4. Give each item one reviewable outcome

Fix the product, make it faster and make it beautiful combines several requests with different decision owners. Separate them. A product mismatch is checked against a source, pacing against the scene's purpose and visual preference against the agreed direction.

A useful formula is observation, consequence and required outcome. For example: the model designation is obscured by a reflection in S03; viewers need to recognise the variant; preserve readability during its main appearance.

That identifies the outcome without necessarily dictating the technical method. If a method is mandatory, record it, but distinguish it from a suggestion. Replacing the reflection may be one way to solve a readability problem rather than the requirement itself.

5. Choose a point or an interval

One timestamp can locate an incorrect word on a static title when the element is otherwise unambiguous. A shape change during movement needs the interval where it occurs.

If the exact boundaries are uncertain, identify the observed range and ask for inspection of the whole scene for that feature. The issue is then not accidentally limited to one noticed frame. The response should explain what range was checked.

For a transition, identify both sides. The issue may be a change of product orientation across the cut rather than a defect in either isolated shot. Correcting one image without reviewing the transition will not resolve that concern.

6. A completed first-review register

Consider a hypothetical digital-instrument film. These examples describe a planning exercise, not a client project. The timestamps refer to an invented file called review_v04.

R01. Scene and interval: S01, 00:02–00:04. Observation: Model designation differs. Required outcome: Use approved wording. Reference: panel-v03 artwork.

R02. Scene and interval: S02, 00:07–00:10. Observation: Lid passes through body. Required outcome: Remove intersection throughout movement. Reference: Approved movement diagram.

R03. Scene and interval: S03, 00:13. Observation: Connector appears to be another type. Required outcome: Check and restore selected component. Reference: revC control view.

R04. Scene and interval: S03→S04, 00:16–00:18. Observation: Orientation is unclear after the cut. Required outcome: Propose a coherent transition. Reference: Same product must remain recognisable.

R05. Scene and interval: S04, ending. Observation: Title content and reading are correct. Required outcome: Accept this version's text. Reference: EN-02 wording.

Add a response owner, state and revised-version link. A wide spreadsheet is not essential; detailed notes can live in individual issue cards with the same identifiers.

R01 and R03 require reference checks. R02 concerns the action. R04 asks for an editing decision. R05 approves a specific element. The rows require different evidence rather than one general response that everything looks better.

7. Separate an observation from the proposed remedy

A reviewer can identify a real problem and suggest a remedy that changes the task. If a title is hard to read and someone requests removal of the whole shot, the observation and proposed solution are separate decisions.

The coordinator records that the reading problem is confirmed while the remedy remains open. The supplier can propose a change in duration, composition or sequence. The buyer selects an option that preserves the scene's purpose.

The same distinction helps with AI defects. If an object changes shape, regenerate everything does not establish the affected scope. Identify the scene and feature first; then ask for a repair proposal and its consequences.

8. Assign decision owners by issue type

An engineer confirms construction and movement. The brand team confirms wording and visual identity. Marketing confirms message priorities. The coordinator confirms that the response is complete and identifies the next action.

This is a responsibility model rather than a required headcount. One person may hold several roles. Aesthetic approval should not silently close an engineering question, and a colour preference should not cancel approved wording without a reason.

Every open item needs a person from whom a decision is expected. Waiting for the client is too broad in a large team. Waiting for the product owner to confirm connector type identifies the dependency.

9. Resolve contradictory feedback before execution

Suppose marketing requests a faster opening while engineering wants more time to understand the mechanism. Do not forward these as unrelated instructions. State the conflict: what information must remain understandable at the desired pace?

Possible responses include simplifying the action, removing a nearby repetition or separating explanatory and advertising outputs. The task owner chooses. The register records the decision rather than treating the most recent message as authoritative.

Another conflict may involve two managers requesting different visual directions. Keep them as alternatives, name the decision owner and compare them on the same frame. Executing incompatible changes one after another is not a resolution.

10. Preserve issues through re-editing

After scenes move, an old timestamp may refer to another image. Retain the original location and add the current one instead of silently replacing it.

R01. Original location: v04, S01, 00:02–00:04. Current location: v05, S01, 00:01–00:03. State: Check wording replacement.

R02. Original location: v04, S02, 00:07–00:10. Current location: v05, S02, 00:06–00:09. State: Check full lid movement.

R04. Original location: v04, S03→S04 transition. Current location: Transition removed in v05. State: Close through structural decision.

R05. Original location: v04 ending. Current location: Different ending in v05. State: Review again.

Removing a transition is not recorded as repairing its former appearance. It resolves the issue through another decision. That distinction makes the history useful.

A scene description remains helpful when timing changes significantly. The person checking the response can locate the action without depending entirely on a numerical offset.

11. Do not close an item solely because the response says done

The supplier's response records implementation. The buyer's check confirms that the required outcome was achieved. These can happen quickly, but they remain different actions.

For R02, watch the full lid movement rather than only a supplied still. For R01, compare the wording with its approved source. For R04, review the new transition in the surrounding sequence.

If the repair creates another issue, add a related item or explain the remaining part clearly. The wording might now be correct but cover a button. Accept the content correction while keeping composition open instead of restarting the entire discussion.

12. Use states with clear meanings

A compact state set is sufficient: registered, decision needed, agreed for correction, implemented awaiting review, closed and cancelled by decision. Adapt the names to the team; definitions matter more than presentation.

Closed should identify the accepted version and checking outcome. Cancelled should explain why: the scene was removed, the requirement changed or the observation was not confirmed. Preserve closed items in the history.

Do not make cell colour the only way to understand status. A textual state and issue identifier remain meaningful when the register is forwarded or exported without its original appearance.

13. Record partial acceptance precisely

Partial acceptance helps when one block is ready and another needs information. State both. For example: v05 body shape and panel wording accepted; lid movement awaiting confirmation; ending title to be checked after the new edit.

This does not automatically authorise publication of the entire file. If the decision permits a particular next production activity, name it. Work can continue on an accepted scene while a dependency remains elsewhere.

Reopen affected decisions when an accepted element changes. New panel wording requires its own checks without necessarily cancelling body geometry approval. Its placement and readability must still be reviewed in the assembled scene.

14. Distinguish an error from a source update

Incorrect reproduction of approved artwork differs from receiving a new label after approval. Both involve work, but their bases are different.

Add a type to the register: correction against a source, source update or new creative decision. This is not a device for dismissing feedback. It helps identify dependent scenes and the next approval step.

For a new revision, record the replacement, affected files and confirming person. Commercial consequences should be discussed against the actual changed scope. Keep the issue register focused on the observed problem and accepted outcome rather than turning every entry into a contract discussion.

15. Check related outputs without copying assumptions

One defect may appear in the main film, short edit and another language version. Identify potentially affected files, then check each at its actual location.

A short edit without the problematic shot is not automatically defective. If it contains a different crop, the effect may differ. Scene identifiers help locate shared material; viewing confirms whether the issue applies.

After updating a common source, return a list of rebuilt files to the register. The buyer can see where the correction has been applied and what remains underway. This matters when versions are delivered in stages.

16. Watch the complete result after individual closure

Closed rows confirm particular decisions. A final full viewing checks their combined effect. A reordered shot, new title or replaced part may change how the sequence reads.

Watch the current file as a whole, then revisit critical intervals. Match its identifier to the register. Acceptance of v07 should not automatically transfer to another export because its name looks similar.

The final note lists accepted files and remaining exceptions. If none remain within the checked package, say so. Do not extend the conclusion to future formats that have not been prepared.

17. Translate vague feedback into observations

Not premium enough may concern surface appearance, light, pacing, composition or detail. Not on-brand needs a reference or identified mismatch. Too AI should become an observable concern: changing shape, incorrect text, an implausible action or an unwanted visual style.

If the reviewer cannot yet explain the cause, ask for two frames: one suitable and one unsuitable, with a short description of the difference. This creates a concrete comparison.

Do not invent precision on the reviewer's behalf. A coordinator can suggest an interpretation, but it needs confirmation. Otherwise, the team may solve a problem the original reviewer never intended.

18. Retain a useful history

At completion, retain the register, accepted versions, current sources and replacement decisions. A later update can then identify which wording was approved and why a scene was constructed that way.

The history does not need to be an endless conversation archive. Preserve significant decisions, links and checking outcomes. Group older comments by scene while retaining their identifiers.

For a later iteration, create a new list linked to earlier evidence. Do not automatically reopen every previous issue. Establish what changed in the task, sources and deliverables, then transfer the relevant requirements.

19. Follow one issue from observation to closure

Trace R03 in the hypothetical register. An engineer says the connector resembles another model. The coordinator links the comment to the revC control view and asks whether that reference belongs to the marketed instrument. Until confirmed, the state is decision needed.

After confirmation, the supplier replaces the element and returns v05 with its new location. The engineer checks connector type, marketing checks that the required detail remains visible and the coordinator records the result. A specific feature is accepted in a specific version.

The editor then shortens the scene for a brief adaptation. Geometry is unchanged, but viewers have less opportunity to inspect the connector. A new question concerns the short version's purpose: must that detail be readable there?

If yes, a compositional or timing response is needed. If no, omission of the close inspection is not a recurrence of the geometry error. Keeping the meaning of an issue prevents distinct decisions from collapsing into connector needs fixing.

20. Send a coherent feedback package

The accompanying message should name the version, open decision groups and unanswered questions. It need not repeat every row when the register is accessible. Show priorities and the next review point.

For example: body and names accepted in v05; lid movement and transition remain open; connector question closed against revC; please return a version identifying changes; the short edit is outside this review. This reports state rather than an emotional assessment.

Check that links open the intended files and recipients have access. Move decisions from private messages into the shared record. Otherwise, participants may believe feedback is complete while the supplier has only part of it.

At the next review, start with changes but finish with the whole film. This checks the response efficiently and then checks the overall meaning. Previously accepted decisions need not reopen without a new observation.

Agree who sends the consolidated package. Direct specialist questions can still be useful, but their accepted answers should return to the shared register.

21. Start without a complicated platform

A small team can begin with columns for identifier, version, scene, time reference, observation, decision, owner and state. Shared access to one current record and review file matters more than elaborate tooling.

Fill several actual items and ask someone who missed the meeting to interpret them. If they cannot locate the interval or identify the expected result, improve the entry. This is a practical check of whether the register can guide work.

When commissioning AI video production or CGI product video, attach a sample register to the brief and name decision owners. The review process can then be agreed before the first viewing, with corrections checked against clear evidence.

Related planning guides

AI Video Test Scene: Acceptance Criteria. Check product consistency, motion and editing in an AI video test scene, and identify where CGI, 3D or compositing are needed before production.

AI, CGI and 3D: choosing the production method