In short
A structured approval workflow replaces chat feedback with frame-level annotations, a version history and clear approval roles. Every revision creates a new version, self-approval is blocked, and approval sits with an authorised role. So it's always clear which cut is final.
What is a structured approval workflow?
In classic review, feedback rains down across chat, mail and voice notes: "that bit around 0:12 again", "the logo's too small", "which file was final?". A structured workflow bundles it all in one place: feedback attaches to the asset, not a thread. In Collavo each asset version moves through defined stages – DRAFT, IN_REVIEW and finally APPROVED or REJECTED.
How do frame-level annotations work?
Instead of "that part somewhere in the middle" you place an annotation on the exact frame. Feedback is precisely located – the creator sees which second and what to change without asking back. That removes the ping-pong rounds spent figuring out what's even being discussed.
- Comment on the exact frame instead of a vague timestamp
- Multiple notes per version, bundled rather than scattered
- A clear link between feedback and the affected spot
Why do versions matter?
Without versioning, three files share one name and nobody knows which is final. With version history every revision loop creates a new, traceable version. You see what changed between versions – and once a version is approved, it's locked and unambiguously the final cut.
Why is self-approval blocked?
A person cannot approve their own content. It's a deliberate governance choice: whoever produces shouldn't also sign off – otherwise approval is worthless. In Collavo self-approval is technically blocked. Sign-off sits with an authorised role, usually the brand manager.
Four-eyes principle
Self-approval is blocked – production and sign-off are separate roles. This protects against posts being waved through by accident or intent.
Which role approves content?
| Stage | Meaning | Who acts |
|---|---|---|
| DRAFT | Work in progress | Creator |
| IN_REVIEW | Submitted for sign-off | Creator submits |
| APPROVED | Approved and locked | Authorised role (e.g. brand manager) |
| REJECTED | Returned with revisions | Authorised role |
How does the rights gate apply before publishing?
Approval and rights are two things: a post can be approved on content yet unclear on rights. The rights gate checks usage rights before publishing. Honestly: the gate only hard-blocks when rights are captured in a structured way – without structured data it warns rather than blocks. The related asset-compliance gate is deliberately fail-open so a missing signal doesn't block publishing uncontrollably.
Frequently asked
- Can the creator approve their own content?
- No. Self-approval is blocked; sign-off sits with an authorised role such as the brand manager.
You might also like