Proofing names, numbers and job titles on screen

Create one authoritative wording list

Collect the text that is expected to appear before the edit reaches final approval. Ask the responsible people to confirm names, organisation styling, job titles and project descriptions. Do not assume a signature block or an old website biography is current for the intended use.

For a participant’s title, decide what time the label describes. A person may have held one role during the project and another at publication. The wording should make the intended reference clear rather than silently substituting whichever title is most recent.

Keep source references with the list so later questions can be resolved without reconstructing the whole review history.

Treat numbers as statements, not decorative text

Record the unit, period, scope and relevant qualification for every quantity. A figure without its basis may look precise while leaving the audience unsure what is being measured.

Ask the factual owner whether rounding or shortening changes the meaning. Do not alter a value to make it fit a graphic. If the full statement is too complex for the available space, discuss a simpler accurate explanation or remove the figure.

Dates also need context. A filming date, package completion date and opening date can all be true while describing different events. Use the one that serves the story and label it appropriately.

Use this proof table

Add a timecode or frame reference once the text appears in an edit. This links the reference wording to the actual treatment the audience will see.

Make two separate passes

First compare the words and numbers with the approved table. Check spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, units and omissions. Ask reviewers to supply exact corrections rather than comments such as “title wrong”.

Then view the text in context. Can the audience tell what the label refers to? Does the line break separate a number from its unit or make a qualification hard to follow? Is the text visible for the intended viewing situation?

The second pass is not a technical accessibility certification. If the organisation has specific requirements, give them to the responsible production and accessibility contacts for assessment rather than guessing a universal font size or display duration.

A fictional title correction

An interview label calls a participant “Project Director”, copied from a current company page. The person was the site manager during the work being discussed. The buyer asks which role the film intends to communicate and agrees precise wording with the participant and relevant organisation.

Elsewhere, a quantity is missing its unit. The reviewer supplies the full approved phrase and the source reference rather than simply requesting a larger number graphic. This is an invented example illustrating a proofing method, not a real participant’s employment history.

Check consistency without forcing identical language everywhere

The main film, short edits and accompanying graphics may use different amounts of context. They should not contradict one another. A shortened title can be acceptable if its meaning remains accurate and the responsible owner agrees.

Distinguish exact-match items, such as a person’s name, from explanations that may legitimately be phrased differently. This prevents the proof table becoming an unnecessary restriction on every editorial sentence.

When a correction is approved, identify all affected outputs. A fixed main-film title does not automatically update a separate vertical edit or thumbnail.

Finish with a named proofing decision

Record the checked version and the person who completed the pass. Any unresolved factual item should remain a visible hold, not disappear into a general approval email.

Send resulting instructions through the consolidated feedback worksheet. The proof table supplies the verified words; the feedback record tells the editor where they need to change. Together they make exact-data corrections easier to implement and confirm.