A comment on an old export should not become a change to the final one.
In development · Interactive examples use fictional dataGive the reviewer the campaign brief, the intended channel and the specific version under review. Time-based notes should refer to that version. Keep requested changes distinct from approval so a team can see what still needs attention.
Explore the planned workflow ↗
Type, placement and review context stay with the candidate.
The proposed workflow distinguishes a draft, a requested change and an approved export. The reviewer remains responsible for factual claims, asset permissions and final publication. Automated preparation does not replace that decision.
Explore the planned workflow ↗Collect the final asset names, relevant usage notes and approval context in the export handoff. Client portals, external reviewer permissions and integrations are planned scope to validate with pilot teams, not services currently available here.
Get the planning templates ↗Keep the source and scope attached to the work.
The next owner needs enough context to understand the deliverable.
A named owner should be able to accept, revise or reject the direction.
A useful review note identifies the version, the time or scene, the requested change and the reason. “Make it punchier” leaves the editor to guess. “Open on the first action and remove the introductory title” gives the editor a concrete revision to assess. The creative owner should resolve contradictory requests before another round begins.
Record which candidate was selected, which changes were accepted and who approved the result. If legal, product or client review is required, make those decisions explicit. A production workflow can organize the discussion; it does not take responsibility for factual claims, asset rights or the final publication decision.
A source, a set of candidates and the decision that moves the project forward.
Keep the source and scope attached to the work.
The next owner needs enough context to understand the deliverable.
A named owner should be able to accept, revise or reject the direction.
The public website, guides and templates are available now. The product workspace is in private development; request a pilot to discuss access and scope. Demonstrations on this site are illustrative, and automatic highlights and transcription are not available.
No. Development includes a browser editor plus CLI and API workflows. These product tools are not publicly accessible on this website; pilot access and supported workflows are agreed separately.
The initial scope starts with footage you own or have permission to use. Generative video is not part of the promised pilot.
Source permissions, supported inputs, output formats, candidate limits, review rounds and the person approving the work. No video-processing service is available on this website.
Bring a recurring production job, approved source material and a clear review owner.
Discuss your workflow ↗No account, trial or payment is created by an enquiry.