The approved review cut and the delivered file may be produced at different moments in the workflow. A final export can accidentally contain an earlier graphic, a missing correction or an unintended end section. The buyer should confirm the relationship between the approved cut and the actual delivered asset.
This is a focused comparison, not a new invitation to reopen settled creative choices. Its purpose is to establish that the handover contains the version the organisation approved.
Identify the approved reference
Record which cut received approval and where that decision is documented. A general statement that the film was approved last week is less useful than an identifiable version and a clear list of any final changes.
If approval was conditional on corrections, confirm that those corrections were completed before calling the export approved. A producer may have made the requested change accurately, but the organisation still needs an appropriate record of the resulting state.
Keep the reference accessible to the person checking delivery. They should not have to reconstruct it from several conflicting email attachments or review links.
Focus on the changes most likely to diverge
Review the final corrections, opening and closing sections, contributor identification, key graphics and any version-specific material. These are practical starting points, but they do not replace a complete playback where the organisation's process requires one.
Check picture, sound and text together. A corrected narration can be paired with an old caption, or a new title can appear over the wrong product view. The approved meaning depends on the assembled combination.
Do not assume a matching runtime proves the files are the same. Different content can occupy the same duration, and an intended delivery adjustment may change duration without changing the substantive account.
Use the actual delivered asset
Download or access the supplied file through the agreed route and inspect that asset. A producer's screenshot or a separate preview may help diagnose an issue, but it does not establish what the delivery contains.
If the organisation uses several output versions, check the differences that matter to each. A correction made in the main film may not automatically appear in a short version or a language variant.
Keep the comparison proportionate and traceable. Record any mismatch with a clear location and description rather than a vague note that the wrong version seems to have arrived.
A hypothetical export mismatch
A fictional client approves a film after correcting a project name in the closing graphic. The delivered main file contains the correction, but one presentation version still uses the earlier graphic.
The acceptance check identifies the specific mismatch before the presentation. The producer replaces that output, and the client verifies the replacement rather than assuming the original approval covers every file bearing the project name.
Confirm the replacement state
When an asset is corrected, identify which earlier file it replaces and update the delivery record. Avoid leaving two indistinguishable candidates in the ordinary use folder.
A final-export comparison closes the gap between creative approval and practical delivery. It helps ensure that the organisation receives the film it agreed to use, not merely a file that looks familiar and arrives under the right project title.
Discuss the brief
Contact Live Images with the proposed audience, production needs and intended use. Confirm suitability, scope and availability for the particular brief.
Editorial note
Original production-planning guidance prepared with AI assistance. Examples are hypothetical, not completed Live Images projects. Search intent is an editorial hypothesis, not measured demand. This draft remains unpublished.