The same expert finding can matter to two audiences for different reasons. A decision maker may need to understand the choice and its implications; an implementation team may need to understand the conditions and dependencies. A single opening that tries to serve both can become slow for one audience and insufficient for the other.
Before commissioning multiple versions, establish whether the audience difference changes the explanation or only the introduction. Two complete films may be unnecessary if a shared core can be framed with distinct openings and next steps.
Identify the question each audience brings
Write one question for each group. Avoid defining the difference only by job title. Some senior viewers will need technical detail, and some operational viewers will first need the strategic context. The actual viewing purpose should guide the structure.
Ask the subject expert which findings both groups must understand. That common material is the candidate shared core. Then identify the context and action specific to each audience.
The plain-language guide linked below emphasises the audience's needs. The production application is to change the route into the explanation without changing the underlying finding to suit the audience.
Keep the common core consistent
If the film uses a shared expert passage, preserve its scope and qualifications in both versions. Do not give one audience a more certain claim simply because their version is shorter.
Where different wording is necessary, have the expert review the two statements together. They should be compatible descriptions of the same evidence, not subtly different conclusions produced by separate review teams.
A version map can show shared scenes, audience-specific context and distinct endings. This helps the producer estimate the additional work and prevents a request for “one small alternate cut” from becoming two unrelated scripts.
Tailor the next discussion
A decision-maker version might end with the information needed for a choice. An implementation version might identify the dependency that must be resolved before work begins. Those are different next steps and should be authorised by the relevant content owner.
Do not invent commitments to make either ending feel decisive. If an implementation plan is not yet approved, the film should explain the current stage rather than present future work as settled.
Hypothetical example
A fictional project review produces a finding relevant to both a steering group and a delivery team. The first proposed film contains every detail in one sequence. The revised plan uses a shared explanation, a short decision-focused introduction for the steering group and a dependency-focused introduction for the delivery team.
Both versions retain the same limitation on the finding. The different endings direct viewers to the appropriate discussion rather than implying that the film itself approves the next action.
Test each version with its audience
Ask representative viewers what question the film answers and what they believe happens next. Compare that with the intended purpose. A version is not successful merely because it is shorter or uses a different title card.
The commissioning checklist should identify audience questions, shared evidence, version-specific context, approved next steps and a reviewer who can compare the versions. That keeps adaptation efficient while protecting consistency.
Discuss the brief
For a proposed project film, contact Live Images with the audience, available evidence and intended use. The production approach and any specialist requirements need an agreed scope.
Source and editorial note
Australian Government plain language guide provides background context, checked 30 October 2026. The film-planning guidance and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis, not technical operating instructions or a claim about a completed Live Images project. Prepared with AI assistance.