A discrepancy log keeps an unresolved fact from becoming an accidental editorial decision. Use it when accounts differ on a date, quantity, responsibility, sequence or explanation that matters to the film.
Preserve what each person actually said
Record the interview reference or time range, the relevant words and the question that prompted them. Keep enough surrounding context to distinguish a disagreement from two answers to different questions.
Avoid combining the accounts into a new sentence before the issue is understood. A compromise number or blended explanation can be less accurate than either source. Likewise, a more polished delivery does not make one account more reliable.
Keep the original material available through the agreed production process. The working log can refer to it rather than circulate full interviews unnecessarily.
Define the disputed proposition
Turn the difference into a narrow question. “The interviews disagree” is too broad. “Does this date refer to practical completion, occupation or the final close-out activity?” gives the relevant project owner something to resolve.
Check terms before escalating a conflict. The speakers may both be correct if they mean different project areas or phases. If so, the film may need clearer wording rather than a choice between them.
Also identify whether the difference is consequential. A harmless preference about how to describe an atmosphere requires a different response from an unsupported claim about who designed the work. Do not spend the review window debating style while a material factual issue remains open.
Copy this discrepancy record
- Issue identifier and exact question:
- Interview A reference and relevant account:
- Interview B reference and relevant account:
- Different terms, dates or project boundaries involved:
- Why the distinction matters to the viewer:
- Record or knowledgeable person able to help:
- Person authorised to confirm public wording:
- Evidence received and what it establishes:
- Remaining uncertainty:
- Editorial decision: clarify, qualify, replace or omit:
- Approved wording and affected versions:
An evidence reference should point to a relevant source, not simply a folder containing many project documents. Ask the checking owner to identify the specific information and any limits on what it proves.
Separate confirmation from authority
A person may hold records that clarify the fact without being authorised to approve publication. Conversely, the final approver may need a specialist’s help to assess the discrepancy.
Name both functions. Ask the knowledgeable person to address the narrow factual question, then send the proposed wording to the appropriate publication decision-maker. If contractual responsibility or a dispute is involved, use the organisation’s established review route rather than assigning judgement to the production team.
Do not treat silence as agreement, and do not pressure an interviewee to adopt another person’s account merely to simplify the edit.
A fictional terminology conflict
One speaker says a project was completed in March; another says June. The buyer’s check finds that March referred to the team’s installation package, while June referred to the wider facility’s handover.
The revised story names the package and relevant stage rather than using an unqualified “project completion” date. Both interview accounts can be understood in their original context, but only the checked distinction belongs in the film. This example is invented and does not establish how any real project uses those terms.
Choose an honest editorial outcome
Some differences will remain unresolved within the production schedule. Options include omitting the disputed detail, narrowing the statement to what is established or holding the affected sequence. A confident-sounding line should not be used simply because the film needs an ending.
Check whether removing the detail creates another problem. If a date or role is essential to understanding the story, the whole passage may need to wait rather than lose the qualifying fact and remain misleading.
The ACCC’s claims guidance supports the basic discipline of using accurate, substantiated claims. This log is an original editorial method, not a procedure prescribed by the regulator.
Close the issue across the deliverables
Once resolved, tell the editor the exact approved wording and which versions it affects. Check titles, captions, short edits and surrounding supplied copy where applicable. A corrected main film does not automatically correct every derivative.
Keep the log’s final decision with the current approval record. The video feedback worksheet can carry the resulting instruction, while the discrepancy record preserves why that instruction was necessary.
Sources and editorial note
ACCC — False or misleading claims — claim accuracy and overall impression. 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.