Delivery Spec Approval Workflow for Post Houses Handling Broadcast and Streaming Simultaneously

Delivering to a broadcaster and a streaming platform simultaneously sounds straightforward until you discover that one wants a 5.1 audio mix with specific loudness standards, the other wants a stereo version with different loudness, one accepts ProRes, the other wants H.264 in a specific container, and the aspect ratio crops are different for each. Running a delivery spec approval workflow that accounts for all of this without a single re-delivery is one of the core operational skills at a serious post house.

The problems here are not usually technical. The encoding is solvable. The problem is the human process: making sure the right version is approved by the right stakeholder before the wrong master is delivered to the wrong platform.

Why Spec Approval Is Harder When You Serve Two Masters

When you deliver exclusively to broadcast, the spec is determined by the broadcaster and it does not change. You learn the spec, you build to it, you deliver. When you add a streaming platform to the mix, you now have two different technical requirements, and sometimes two different creative requirements as well.

Broadcasters often require an unrated cut within specific time brackets. Streaming platforms may want a director's cut with an additional ten minutes. The broadcaster wants safe-area graphics. The streaming platform displays full-bleed. One needs closed captions in a specific format. The other needs SDH subtitles in a different container.

Before any of this reaches the delivery encoder, someone needs to approve that the correct version is going to the correct destination. That approval process has to be clear, documented, and trackable.

Building the Delivery Spec Document

The foundation of this workflow is a delivery spec document that is agreed upon before post begins and is referenced at every approval stage.

The spec document should include, for each delivery:

• Destination and platform name
• Required codec and container
• Resolution and frame rate
• Audio configuration and loudness standard (typically LKFS or LUFS)
• Aspect ratio and any crop or safe area requirements
• Subtitle and caption format and language requirements
• HDR or SDR requirement and color space
• Any version-specific content requirements (rating, runtime, cut restrictions)

This document is not created at delivery time. It is created during pre-production or early in post, sourced directly from the commissioning broadcaster and the streaming platform's technical team. If the spec is not confirmed before picture lock, you are guessing, and guessing means re-deliveries.

Read about how managing multiple cut versions for a broadcaster, festival, and streaming delivery covers a related version-management challenge when multiple destinations have different requirements. Read about how streaming platform delivery requirements change your approval workflow for a deeper look at the content-level differences between broadcast and streaming delivery.

Separate Approval Tracks for Each Output

The most common mistake in multi-destination post production is treating the delivery approval as a single event. The creative director approves the cut, so it goes to delivery. But which version of the cut? Encoded to which spec? With which audio mix?

Each output needs its own approval track. In practice, this means:

Broadcast version approval: the specific cut with broadcast-spec audio, safe-area graphics, correct runtime, and any broadcaster-required content modifications is reviewed and signed off by the post supervisor and the broadcast compliance contact before encoding.

Streaming version approval: the streaming-specific cut with any additional runtime, correct audio mix, full-bleed graphics, and streaming platform-specific content requirements is reviewed and signed off separately.

These two reviews may share many of the same visual elements. But the approval event needs to be for the specific version, not the cut in general.

Using a Review Platform for Multi-Spec Approval

For multi-destination delivery, the review platform needs to support version stacking and clear version labeling. If the broadcast version and the streaming version look similar, it is very easy for an approver to watch the wrong one and sign off on the wrong spec.

In PlayPause, you can label each version clearly: "Episode03_Broadcast_v01" and "Episode03_Streaming_v01" as separate uploads within the same project. The approver for each track reviews only the version they are responsible for. When both approve, the post supervisor has a documented record that both versions were reviewed and approved before encoding.

The comment thread on each version also serves as the record of what was flagged and addressed during that version's review. If the streaming platform's technical team flags an audio level issue, that note appears on the streaming version's thread, not on the broadcast version, so the engineer knows which master to fix.

Handling Spec Conflicts Between Platforms

Sometimes the broadcast and streaming specs conflict on a content level, not just a technical level. The broadcaster's standards and practices team requires a content change that the streaming platform's version does not need. Or the streaming platform wants a scene that the broadcaster's time slot does not allow.

When this happens, the two versions diverge editorially, not just technically. Each version now has its own picture lock as well as its own technical spec. Managing this without a rigorous version control process is almost impossible.

My recommendation for content-divergent versions is to treat them as separate projects for the purpose of approval, even if they share 90% of the same footage. Each has its own approval chain, its own compliance review, and its own delivery record.

See how post supervisors track network notes across picture, sound, and VFX for a look at how approval tracks are managed across departments on complex broadcast productions.

The QC Layer Before Delivery

Approval is not the same as QC. After every version is approved, it goes through a technical QC pass before delivery. QC checks whether the encoded file actually matches the spec that was approved.

A basic QC checklist for multi-destination delivery:

The QC reviewer signs off on each item before the master leaves the building. This QC record, alongside the creative and spec approval records, is the complete documentation set for each delivery.

• Delivery spec document confirmed for each platform before post begins
• Separate review version created for each output
• Platform-specific approver signs off on each version
• Post supervisor holds a delivery approval record for each output
• QC pass checks encoded master against approved spec
• Delivery does not proceed until QC is signed off

PlayPause's video proofing workflow is built for exactly this kind of multi-destination scenario. The workspace-based pricing means you can run broadcast and streaming approval tracks simultaneously without paying per reviewer for each platform's contacts. The post supervisor manages both tracks from one workspace. Guest reviewers from the broadcaster and the streaming platform can access their specific version via a separate link with no extra seat cost. The Agency plan at $19/month is the most practical option for post houses running multi-destination delivery workflows. Start free at PlayPause pricing and build the multi-spec approval discipline from the first project.