Approved With Changes Status: Handling Conditional Video Approvals
A client approves the cut with a couple of small tweaks, then treats the next version as a fresh round. How I define a conditional approval, pin the allowed changes to the frame and check only those.
Most agency producers I know use the approved with changes status as a label that means two opposite things, right, it means approved when the invoice goes out and not approved the moment the client opens the next version. I ran my own editing agency that way for longer than I'd like to admit, and to be very honest most of the pain came from a status on the card with no rules behind it, so "approved, just a couple of small tweaks" became a door we kept leaving open.
The editor fixes the tweaks in an afternoon, and then the next version gets watched like a brand new cut, by the same approver with fresh eyes or by their boss seeing it for the first time, and suddenly nine notes land on a video that was approved two days earlier. Nobody lied and nobody broke the contract, right, the conditional approval simply never said what it allowed.
So this post is basically status design for agency producers, one conditional approval walked through with real timecodes, the rules I hold it to, the exact reply I write under the approval, and how I model it in PlayPause so the final MV gets checked against the listed changes and nothing else.
What approved with changes actually means
Basically, approved with changes means the client has accepted the cut as a whole, so the story, the structure, the pacing and the creative choices are done, and a short, finite list of specific fixes gets made without the video going back into full review. The approval is for the film and the changes are a to-do list attached to it, right, and those two halves have to stay separate or the status means nothing. Plenty of proofing tools ship a decision button with exactly this label and leave the meaning entirely to you.
The cleanest definition I know comes from my software side. In code review, a reviewer can approve a pull request and still leave a few nits, meaning tiny cosmetic comments, and everyone understands the nits get fixed without another full review, while anything bigger goes back as a request for changes. That's exactly the line I want on a video card, and it borrows the core habit of version control, where every change is tied to one specific version.
So in my agency, an approved with changes status means one named approver has approved this exact version, with a written list of changes, each tied to a timecode, and the next version is reviewed against that list only. Approved pending changes, approved with minor edits, approved subject to fixes and so on, the wording matters far less than the rule written behind it.
the client says approved with a couple of tweaks, nothing gets written down, and the next version is watched like a brand new cut
the approved version carries a numbered list tied to timecodes, and the next version is checked against that list and nothing else
Why conditional approvals reopen finished rounds
Say you're producing a 45-second launch spot for a meal-kit brand on paid social, and on MV3 the client's marketing lead comments at 00:44, approved, just a couple of small tweaks. The tweaks arrive over the next hour: the offer super at 00:12 still shows last quarter's discount code, the music from 00:36 to 00:42 sits on top of the voiceover call to action, and the end card at 00:43 has the old logo lockup. Then, almost as an afterthought, maybe the opening could feel a bit more energetic.
Two of those notes are small motion graphics swaps on a super and an end card, and the third is a mix fix, so none of them touches the edit itself, right, and each one points at a frame anybody can check on MV4 in about ten seconds. The fourth is where the trouble starts, because a more energetic opening could mean a faster first cut, a different first shot or a completely new hook, and since it can't be checked against anything, it quietly turns MV4 into an open round.
Every conditional approval video I've watched go sideways in my agency leaked in one of a few ways. The vague note riding in with the specific ones is the most common, and close behind it is the approver rewatching MV4 top to bottom and finding things they never mentioned on MV3. The sneakiest is the boss seeing the spot for the first time at MV4, which is really a question of who reviews in which order, covered in parallel versus sequential approval.
Nobody is being difficult when this happens, the client was simply never told the round had ended, so they kept reviewing. That's classic scope creep arriving as nine small asks, and the piece on stopping clients reopening earlier decisions picks up from there.
A tweak list that never closes is really a revision round still running under a nicer name.
Setting rules for an approved with changes status
The first rule I write into every client setup is that each change has to be specific enough that someone who wasn't on the call can check it on one frame or one short range, so a discount code at 00:12 qualifies and a more energetic opening doesn't. The second is that no change can need new material, so no new footage, no voiceover pickup and no new music license. The second a fix needs a recording session we're back in production, which sits well outside what small post-production fixes are meant to cover, and a script line after the shoot is its own conversation, covered in changing the script after filming.
The third rule is that the list closes when the status is set, so only the named approver adds to it, and only before we set it. Anything arriving later becomes a new round counted against the statement of work, the SOW, or a separately quoted change. The fourth is that the next version gets one check against the list, and if a listed fix comes back wrong the editor fixes it again for free, but nothing new joins the list. Does that make sense, right, the client gets a free correction on anything we got wrong, and we still don't leave the door open.
I also cap the list, and I'm pretty sure this is the rule that surprises people most. If a client comes back with more than five items, or any item moves the structure, like reordering scenes or swapping the hook, the cut doesn't qualify at all and it goes on the card as Needs changes, because I'd much rather have that honest status than a polite approval hiding a full round underneath.
- Each change is tied to a timecode or a short range
- No change needs new footage, voiceover or music
- The list comes from the one named approver
- The list closes the moment the status is set
- Five changes or fewer, and nothing that moves the structure
Trust me on any level, writing these rules into the SOW is the boring part that really really does all the work. My line reads roughly like this: an approved with changes decision accepts the version as final, subject only to the listed fixes, which are made once at no extra charge, and any further change is quoted separately or counted as the next revision round. Once that sentence is signed, saying no to the energetic opening becomes a polite reminder of what both sides agreed to, right, and the producer never has to play the bad guy.
Designing custom review statuses for client work
Custom statuses come with every PlayPause plan, and for client work I keep the set of video approval statuses small, because every extra status is one more judgment call for a producer on a Friday evening. This is what sits on the card in my agency:
- In review: the version is on the share link and the named approver hasn't decided.
- Needs changes: the round is open, notes are still coming, and the next version gets a full review.
- Approved with changes: the film is approved and a closed list of fixes is pinned to this version.
- Approved: this exact version is final and moves to delivery.
The client never sets these statuses, right, they watch through a share link without creating an account, click the exact frame and write their decision as a comment, and the producer on my team moves the card. So the status is our record of what the client said, and the producer decides whether a conditional approval passes the rules, which is how it should work in any proper client approval workflow.
I keep the written meaning of each status in the client's brand Playbook, on the Agency plan and up, so any editor who picks up the account knows Approved with changes means a closed list with one check at the end. Our approval workflow for video page shows the bigger picture, and client approval stages maps where this status sits between script and final cut.
Listing the allowed changes on the frame
Most teams lose the plot here, because the change list ends up in an email or in the producer's head, so I pin it to the frames themselves and the list and the evidence become the same thing.
In the meal-kit example, the discount code is a frame-accurate comment at 00:12, and the music note is a range comment from 00:36 to 00:42, so the editor sees exactly where the dip starts and ends. For the end card, the marketing lead draws a box around the old lockup at 00:43, which saves a paragraph about which logo and which corner.
Then I reply under the approval comment and @mention the editor, and the reply reads close to this: "Approved with changes on MV3, closed list. One, new discount code at 00:12. Two, music ducked under the voiceover from 00:36 to 00:42. Three, new logo lockup at 00:43. Anything after this reply goes into a new round." It looks a little formal for a comment thread, right, but the whole final check hangs on that one reply.
The energetic opening, right, I reply to that one too and ask the marketing lead to make it checkable, for instance by choosing between trimming the first shot from two seconds to one or swapping it for another shot from the same shoot. If they pick the trim, it becomes item four and still fits the rules. If they want to see options first, that's a creative question and the round isn't finished, so the honest status for MV3 is Needs changes, and I say that plainly.
If the editor cuts in Premiere Pro, the Premiere Pro plugin shows those comments inside Premiere, and clicking one jumps the playhead to that frame. There's no native panel for DaVinci Resolve or Final Cut Pro, so editors on those keep the review open beside the timeline and work through the timecodes as a plain to-do list, which works fine when the list is three items long.
Checking the final version against the change list
MV4 goes onto the same card as a version stack, on the Creator plan and up, so MV3 with its approval and its list sits right underneath and nobody guesses which link is current. On the Agency plan I open the side-by-side version compare and step through only the listed timecodes, MV3 against MV4, 00:12, then 00:36 to 00:42, then 00:43. The catch here is that I also scrub the cuts around each fix, because an editor swapping a logo can nudge a cut by a frame without noticing.
Then I reply in each thread with done in MV4 and send the approver back to the same link, asking them to confirm those three fixes. What I'm asking for is a check against a list they wrote themselves, right, and that framing changes how people watch, because they go straight to 00:12 instead of settling in with fresh eyes. Who-watched analytics show me who opened MV4, when and from which city, so I never chase a confirmation from someone who hasn't looked.
MV4 is reviewed against the three listed fixes on MV3, and anything new that shows up after the status is set becomes a new round or a quoted change.
Once the approver writes confirmed on MV4, the card goes to Approved and the round is closed, which is the written, version-specific sign-off our video approvals setup is built around. If the boss now wants the product shots in a different order, I skip the argument in the thread, point at the list and the SOW line, and the ask becomes a quoted change order or the next paid round. At the end of the day that conversation is far easier when the evidence sits on the frame in the client's own words, and the same trail covers you if you ever face a reversed video approval, you see what I mean here.
Frequently asked questions
Is approved pending changes the same as approved with changes?
For practical purposes they mean the same thing, the client has accepted the cut and a short list of fixes is still to be made. What matters is that your team picks one label, writes down what it allows and uses it consistently, right, because in every mess I've seen the wording was fine and the confusion came from two producers using one status to mean two different things.
Does an approved with changes status count as a revision round?
In my agency it closes the round it was given on, with the listed fixes included, so the next version doesn't cost the client another round. It's one sentence in the SOW, so if the contract allows two rounds, a conditional approval on round two finishes the job, and anything outside the list is billed separately or becomes a new round the client chooses to start.
Who should set the status on the card?
Someone on your team, usually the producer, after the named approver has written their decision as a comment on that exact version. Clients review through a share link without an account, so they comment and your team moves the card, and the producer checks every note against the rules before the status goes on, which keeps one person accountable for what the card says.
What if the client adds a new note after approving with changes?
I thank them, then point to the list on the frame. If the note is a genuine mistake the editor introduced in MV4, it gets fixed for free, and if it's a new idea, it's either the next round under the SOW or a quoted change. Most clients accept that quickly in my experience, because the list sitting on the frame is written in their own words.
If you want to try this on your own client work, custom statuses, threaded replies and version stacks are all laid out on PlayPause pricing, and every plan starts with a 7-day free trial, so you can run one real conditional approval through it before deciding anything.
So yeah. That's my way of saying it.
Saumyajit co-founded PlayPause after years watching review and approval quietly eat creative teams' deadlines. He writes about the workflow side of video, feedback, versioning, and getting to a clean sign-off.
Related resources
Keep reading
Bring your team into one review space
Centralize feedback, lock approvals, and deliver faster, start free today.
Sign Up for Free