When two authorised sources disagree about a fact before release, mark the affected film versions as unresolved. Do not choose the more convenient account to keep the schedule moving. At the same time, determine whether the whole production must stop or only the parts that depend on the disputed statement.
The buyer's immediate task is to contain the uncertainty and route it to the right factual owner. The editor should not be expected to arbitrate a project record or decide which business unit has greater authority.
Define the disputed claim precisely
Write down the exact statement in question and the sources that differ. A broad note saying the numbers need checking leaves reviewers unsure whether the concern affects one caption or the film's central conclusion.
Identify where the claim appears in speech, graphics and associated versions. Include implications created by the sequence, not only the exact words. A short edit may omit the statement but still rely on it for its closing promise.
Preserve the current material and review status so nobody mistakes an unresolved version for an approved one. Use the organisation's established version-control process rather than inventing a separate informal route.
Separate resolution from production preference
Ask the responsible factual owner what evidence will settle the question and who can authorise the final wording. The production deadline can inform escalation, but it cannot establish which claim is true.
If the issue cannot be resolved in time, consider whether the film can make a narrower supported statement. That choice should be reviewed for meaning; removing a precise number may still leave the same unsupported conclusion.
Do not pressure a contributor to endorse a compromise merely because the competing sources are awkward to reconcile. The outcome needs an evidential basis, not a midpoint between two assertions.
A hypothetical version hold
A fictional contractor has a main project film and several short extracts ready for review. Two project records give different accounts of the area covered by the completed stage. The figure appears in the main film and one extract, while other clips concern a separate verified design decision.
The coordinator identifies the dependent versions and pauses their approval. Unrelated caption proofing and other work continue. Once the project owner supplies the authorised stage definition, the affected versions are revised and reviewed together.
Release the hold through an explicit decision
Record the resolved wording, its basis and the versions updated. Do not rely on a casual message that the issue is sorted if the editor and approver still hold different references.
Check the neighbouring statements after the correction. A changed fact may alter the interpretation of a comparison or conclusion even when those lines were not initially disputed.
A scoped factual hold protects the film's credibility without automatically freezing every production task. It gives the uncertainty an owner, a visible boundary and a clear route back to approval when the evidence is ready.
Discuss your production brief
Contact Live Images with your project context and the decision described here. Ask about suitability, scope and availability before making production commitments.
Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images. Planning guidance is general; suitability and production scope must be agreed for your project.