sectionwellThe field notes / Review & revision
Which website draft did the client actually review?
A small version and source record keeps an old screenshot from silently becoming an instruction for the current design.
A client says, ‘Move the service list back under the headline.’ You open the current homepage and find it is already there. The comment may be mistaken, or it may refer to an older screenshot. Guessing which version the client saw can create a new error while trying to fix a nonexistent one. Before deciding what to change, connect each comment to an identifiable draft and source.
Record the smallest useful version anchor
In this fictional case, Northline Therapy reviewed a homepage preview on Tuesday. The studio sent v4 at 09:00, then a corrected v4b at 14:00 after fixing a spacing defect. On Wednesday the owner forwards a screenshot from a colleague with the note about the service list. The screenshot shows the old v3 headline and has no visible URL. The studio should not rewrite v4b from a comment that may concern v3.
- Current approved review target: homepage v4b, preview URL or file reference, sent Tuesday 14:00.
- Incoming comment: owner-forwarded screenshot, received Wednesday, underlying screenshot date and version unknown.
- Observed mismatch: screenshot headline matches v3, while service list is already below the headline in v4b.
- Next action: ask the owner whether the requested change is still needed on v4b; attach or link the current review target.
A version record does not need a sophisticated system. A row with the page, version label, share link, send time, reviewer and comment source is enough for this incident. The version label must describe an artifact the reviewer can actually see. If you replace the file behind a stable link, record when the content changed so an earlier comment is not misrepresented as feedback on the replacement.
A reply that resolves the ambiguity
I traced this note to a screenshot that appears to show an earlier homepage. On the current v4b preview, the service list is already below the headline. Could you check v4b at this link and tell me whether a different move is still needed? I will leave the current layout unchanged until you confirm.
The reply gives the client one current object to inspect and one question. It avoids saying the client was wrong. When the client answers, attach that answer to v4b and mark the old screenshot comment clarified or superseded. If they request a new arrangement, describe the exact arrangement before doing the work. A vague ‘move it back’ is not a precise implementation instruction.
When this is unnecessary
If a single reviewer is looking at one stable link and asks for an obvious typo correction, a short reply and the corrected version are enough. A version ledger adds work without improving the decision. Use a record when versions, forwarded screenshots or multiple review channels make it unclear which design is under discussion. Figma provides file version history and comments, but a forwarded image or call note may still need a manual source entry outside the design file.
The free Website Review & Revision Sample demonstrates one version-linked comment and client request. The full kit is an optional next step when a whole review cycle has several such comments and a client response must account for all of them. Hold any change whose reference version cannot be established. Sending a new preview link is often the most useful next action.
Was this example useful for your next client conversation?