Three months after delivery, the client’s new marketing manager emails to say the launch video went live with last year’s price on screen, and that nobody on their side signed it off.
You scroll back through WhatsApp and find the message from your old contact, a “looks great!” with a thumbs-up under the link. The link opens a folder that now holds v5. Nothing in the chat says which version she watched, and she left the company in June.
That message shows the client was happy at some point. It says nothing about what they approved, and when money or a public mistake is involved, that’s the part everyone argues about.
Why each version needs its own approval is covered in how to stop endless revision rounds. This post is about the record itself, what goes in it and how to capture approvals that happen in a chat, on a call or in a meeting.
In short
- A “looks great!” in a chat shows the client was happy, not which version they approved.
- A usable record says who approved, which version, when, what was in it and how it came in.
- When approval comes in a chat, on a call or in a meeting, write it down the same day, keep it with the version and confirm it back in writing.
- Turn a voice note with changes into comments on the frames the same day.
- If an approval decides money, write into the contract what counts as approval.
Why a chat message is weak proof
A message like “looks great!” is a reaction to whatever the person had open at the time. Unless they named the version, you’re left guessing which file it was, and links make that worse because they keep pointing to whatever is newest.
An emoji is even thinner. A thumbs-up on a message that holds two links and a question about the invoice could be about any of them.
Then there’s who said it. The coordinator who replies fastest isn’t always the person who can approve, and when the director disagrees later, “but Pedro said it was fine” won’t get you far.
Chats also go missing. Phones get replaced, people leave groups, and the contact who approved might lose the thread long before you need it.
Most “I never approved that” moments aren’t bad faith. Usually someone remembers a different version, or a different person said yes, and there’s nothing written down to check.
What a usable approval record contains
Five things, each one an answer to a question you’ll be asked later.
| Weak record | Usable record | |
|---|---|---|
| Who | “the client” | Ana Souza, the approver named at kickoff |
| Which version | “the video” | v3, Launch_Film_v3.mp4, 1:45 |
| When | “last week” | Tuesday, Oct 13, 4:12 pm |
| What was in it | a link that now opens v5 | v3 kept exactly as it was sent |
| How it came in | “she said it was fine” | WhatsApp message, saved with v3 |
“Who” has to be someone allowed to approve. Naming one approver per video at kickoff is what makes this easy, and the post on clients who take too long to approve goes into how to set that up.
“Which version” needs a number or a file name that never changes meaning, so “the latest” doesn’t qualify.
“What was in it” means you keep the approved file as it was and never overwrite it with the next export. A year from now you should be able to open the cut that was approved and put it next to what aired.
The channel matters because a click on an approve button and a “fine by me” on a call carry different weight, and whoever reads the record later should know which one it was.
When the approval happens outside the review tool
Plenty of approvals happen in a chat or at the end of a meeting, and refusing them would only slow the job down. Accept them and make the record the same day.
- Write it down right away, with who said it, about which version, when and where. An hour later you’ll remember it less precisely, and a week later you’ll be guessing.
- Put it with the version. A screenshot of the message or your notes from the call belong next to the file they refer to, in the same place as the comments on that cut.
- Then confirm it back in writing, in the same chat or by email, naming the version and what happens next:
Hi Ana, just to confirm: you’re approving v3 of the launch video, the version we sent on Tuesday (1:45). The final export goes out tomorrow, and anything that changes after this goes into a new round.
Ask for a one-word reply. “Confirmed” from the approver, under a message that names the version, is a far better record than a thumbs-up under a link. After a meeting, send the same message within the hour to everyone who was in the room.
Voice notes with changes in them
The opposite case is the two-minute voice note with six changes in it, recorded in a car. It’s quick for the client to send and easy for you to lose, because nobody replays it before the next cut and you can’t search it.
Transcribe it into the review the same day.
- Listen once with the video open and turn each change into its own comment on the frame it’s about.
- If something is vague (“the part with the logo”), ask now, while the client still remembers what they meant.
- Then send the list back: “These are the six changes I heard in your audio. Did I miss anything?”
- Keep the original audio as well, in case the wording is ever questioned.
If a client would rather talk than type, ask them to record the voice note on the video itself next time, so it lands on the right frame from the start.
Will a chat screenshot hold up?
That depends on where you work and what your contract says, so it’s a question for a lawyer. A screenshot on its own is easy to challenge, since it can be edited or cropped out of context and it rarely names the version.
What makes an approval hard to dispute is several records that agree with each other. The client’s message, your written confirmation naming the version, the approved file kept as it was and the delivery email that followed all tell the same story.
If an approval decides money, such as the final payment or the start of a media buy, write into the contract what counts as approval (the approve button on the review link, say, or a written reply from the named approver) and have a lawyer check the wording.
How this works in RecReview
In RecReview the client approves or requests changes with a button on the review page. Approving takes someone who has identified with a name and email, so an anonymous visitor can’t do it. If you turn on contact roles, only the client’s managers can approve, while reviewers comment and ask for changes.
The decision is stored on the version. On the review page, the version shows who decided, the version number and the date and time, as in “Approved by Ana Souza · v3 · Oct 13, 04:12 PM”.
Earlier versions stay on the task, so you can open the exact cut that was approved and compare it with the next one.
When the client approves on WhatsApp, by email or on a call, anyone on your team who can send versions to the client logs it from the review page with Client approved or Client requested changes, and picks how the client let you know: WhatsApp, Email, Meeting or call, or Other.
It can only be logged on the task’s latest version. The effect is the same as the client clicking the button, including your automations and, for an approval, the delivery webhook.
The version then reads “Approved by the client · logged by Marcos via WhatsApp · v3”, with the date and time. When you log an approval, you can also send the client’s main contacts the delivery email, which names the approved version.
Every decision goes into the task’s activity history with its version number. A decision the client makes on the link also goes into that contact’s history, next to their views, comments and downloads, and a download made before the approval shows up in the same list and sends your team a notification.
A voice note the client records on the video sits on its frame like any other comment, and a screenshot of a WhatsApp message can go into a team-only comment on the version it refers to. More on the client portal, where clients find everything waiting for their review.
