Showing the right contribution on a shared construction project

1. Separate the project from your part in it

Write two short statements. The first describes the overall project in language a viewer can understand. The second names the specific work your organisation carried out. If the second statement simply repeats the first, the boundary may still be unclear.

Use verbs that describe the actual responsibility: designed, fabricated, installed, coordinated or supplied, where those words are accurate. Broad words such as delivered or created need context when they could imply responsibility for the whole result. Ask the project information owner to check the wording.

• Overall project in one sentence:
• Our organisation and actual role:
• Specific package, area or stage covered:
• Work outside that role:
• Other contributions needed to understand the story:
• Person who can confirm this account:

2. Give each proposed claim a checking trail

A statement about responsibility, a statement about an action and a statement about a result need different support. Being present on a project does not establish that a team made every decision shown in the film. A strong-looking finished space does not establish a particular performance result.

Make a short card for each important statement. Record the supporting source or knowledgeable person, together with any limit on what the evidence establishes. Keep private records in your approved systems; production notes can refer to an owner and document reference rather than copy confidential material.

• Proposed statement:
• Organisation or person it describes:
• Action, responsibility or result being claimed:
• Source or person who can confirm it:
• What that source does not establish:
• Wording status: confirmed, revise, query or omit:
• Checking owner and date needed:

3. Check what the picture might imply

Viewers connect words, images and branding. An interview about one package followed by a wide view of the whole site may be read more broadly than intended. Check the combination, not just the accuracy of each component on its own.

For each sequence, ask what an unfamiliar viewer would think the commissioning team did. If the answer goes beyond the agreed role, discuss a clearer spoken explanation, a more specific picture or a short label. Do not add a credit that is so small or brief that it cannot do its intended job.

• Spoken statement or proposed title:
• Picture that accompanies it:
• Likely viewer interpretation:
• Is that interpretation supported?
• Context or wording needed to make the role clear:
• Person confirming the combined meaning:

Use the technical explanation worksheet when the contribution itself needs a clearer explanation. That work should start from the checked role, rather than make an uncertain claim more persuasive.

4. Make shared decisions and outcomes explicit

Where several organisations contributed to a decision, describe the collaboration at the level you can support. Distinguish proposing an option, agreeing it, coordinating its implementation and carrying out the work. Those can be different contributions.

In a fictional example, a specialist contractor installed a facade system, while another organisation designed it and the builder coordinated the site sequence. The draft line “we designed and delivered the building” would overstate the specialist’s role. A more precise starting point might be “our team installed the facade system and coordinated its installation with the builder”, subject to the project facts being checked. The example is invented and does not describe a Live Images client.

The same care applies to outcomes. If a result depended on several parties, avoid presenting it as the commissioning team’s sole achievement. Leave an unverified causal claim out or identify it as a question for the relevant project owner.

• Decision or outcome being discussed:
• Contributions that are actually known:
• What this speaker personally did or observed:
• Other context needed for a fair explanation:
• Unresolved attribution or evidence question:
• Approved wording and checking owner:

5. Give reviewers a defined question

Send the relevant wording and the pictures it accompanies, rather than asking for a general endorsement of the whole film. A reviewer should know whether you need them to check a role description, a project fact, a name or the meaning of a particular sequence.

Record disagreements as open decisions. Do not treat silence, a logo in a supplied document or permission to film a location as confirmation of every statement about that organisation. Keep the editorial check separate from the permission and publication decisions handled by the responsible people.

• Sequence or time reference:
• Exact question for this reviewer:
• Role, fact or wording they can confirm:
• Material they need to see in context:
• Response and unresolved point:
• Person authorised to settle the final wording:

Collect the agreed responses through the video feedback worksheet so that the editor receives one clear set of instructions.

6. Keep the attribution intact in shorter versions

A short edit can lose the sentence that explained whose work the audience is seeing. Review the headline, opening picture, spoken claim and ending together in each proposed version. The surrounding post or presentation introduction may also change the meaning.

Finish with a contribution record that can travel with the approved film: the project description, the team’s role, the statements checked, the remaining exclusions and the person responsible for later corrections. This is a working editorial record, not a contract or permission form.

• Version and intended use:
• Where the team’s role is made clear:
• Important context removed from the longer film:
• Replacement explanation needed:
• Final checking owner:
• Record of the approved wording: