Start with the explanation the film needs. Then ask which people have first-hand knowledge of its different parts. This worksheet helps a buyer propose a complementary pair of interviewees. It does not decide anyone’s entitlement to appear or authorise someone to speak for another organisation.
Turn the story into questions before listing names
Write three or four questions a prospective client would reasonably ask about the project. Keep them concrete: what was the team asked to deliver, what decision mattered, how was the work coordinated, and what can now be shown?
For each question, distinguish knowledge from authority. Someone may know exactly how an installation was coordinated but not be authorised to discuss the client’s commercial objectives. Another person may approve public wording without having observed the work. Both roles matter, but they are not interchangeable interview contributions.
Do not create a question merely to justify a favoured speaker. If a proposed topic adds nothing to the audience’s understanding, leave it outside the film or explain why it belongs in a different communication.
Build a perspective-gap matrix
Use one row per essential story question. Add candidate names only after the first two columns are complete.
| Audience question | Experience needed | Candidate with first-hand knowledge | What they cannot confirm | Supporting evidence | Public-speaking authority to check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What was required? | Understanding of the agreed project need | To confirm | Other parties’ intentions | Approved brief or knowledgeable owner | To confirm |
| What decision changed the approach? | Participation in that decision | To confirm | Results not yet measured | Decision record or checked account | To confirm |
| What was delivered? | Knowledge of completed work | To confirm | Whole-project claims beyond their role | Visible work and approved facts | To confirm |
The empty cells are useful. They identify questions that no available speaker can answer responsibly. Address the gap with verified context, another agreed source or a narrower story. Do not ask a confident speaker to fill it through speculation.
Look for complementarity, not disagreement
A useful pair might explain the requirement and the response, or a project decision and its implementation. They do not need opposing views. The aim is to add understanding rather than manufacture a debate.
Compare the proposed contributions in one sentence each. If both say “the project went well and teamwork mattered”, ask what specific experience each person can add. If that distinction cannot be found, the second interview may not be the best use of the agreed scope.
Also check whether the account becomes lopsided. Two people from one team can explain that team’s work accurately, but their presence should not imply that other organisations endorse the account. Name the boundaries of their knowledge in preparation.
A fictional selection decision
A contractor plans a film about coordinating a staged fit-out. Its director and marketing manager are initially nominated. Both can introduce the company, but neither managed the sequence being discussed.
The buyer instead proposes the project manager, who can explain the coordination decision, and the client representative, who can describe the requirement from their own experience. The client’s participation and public-use approval remain to be confirmed. If that person cannot participate, the fallback is a narrower contractor account with approved background wording, not a substitute claiming to speak for the client.
This example is invented. It illustrates source selection, not a Live Images project or a recommended pair for every production.
Check practical readiness without turning it into a popularity contest
Once a pair appears suitable, confirm availability, willingness, relevant access needs and the support each person wants before filming. An experienced speaker with limited project knowledge is not automatically a stronger choice than a less practised person with a clear first-hand account.
Prepare a short role note for each interview: the questions they will cover, the evidence or example they can discuss, topics outside their role and the person who checks facts afterwards. Use the interview evidence worksheet for that preparation rather than scripting identical answers.
Finish with a named alternative for a missing perspective and a decision about what the story loses if that alternative is unavailable. Keep the selection provisional until the production team confirms the practical plan.
Live Images’ Industry Standard currently includes up to two interview participants. Bring the completed matrix to the scope discussion; additional interviews or locations should not be assumed to be included.
Sources and editorial note
Live Images — Industry Standard — current project-film scope and preparation responsibilities; checked 29 October 2026.
The worksheet and fictional example are original editorial planning guidance. Confirm project facts, permissions and the written production scope with the responsible people. Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images.