Free 10-question scorecard
Answer 10 quick yes/no questions to find out how structured your client feedback process really is. Get a score out of 100, a clear banding, and specific recommendations for your weakest areas.
1. Do you collect feedback from all stakeholders in one consolidated place?
2. Is there a single named sign-off authority for each project?
3. Are revision rounds capped in your contracts or scope documents?
4. Is there a fixed deadline for each feedback round?
5. Does feedback reference a specific location (timestamp, page, pin) rather than a written description?
6. Is conflicting feedback between stakeholders resolved before it reaches the creative team?
7. Can you see the status of every open feedback item at a glance?
8. Is every approval logged with a name and timestamp?
9. Is the file locked or marked final once approved, preventing late-arriving changes?
10. Does work get an internal review pass before it goes to the client?
Not a generic maturity quiz — every question is weighted by how much it typically affects review time and cost.
Covers consolidation, sign-off authority, revision caps, deadlines, pinpoint commenting, conflict resolution, tracking, audit logging, file locking, and internal QA.
Each "no" answer is weighted by its typical impact on revision rounds — high-impact gaps cost you more points than minor ones.
Chaotic, Developing, Structured, or Excellent — an instant read on where your process sits without needing to interpret a raw number.
Every "no" answer generates a concrete, actionable recommendation — not generic advice to "communicate better".
Includes questions on approval logging and file locking — factors that matter for scope disputes, not just speed.
The questions apply equally to video, PDF, design, and mixed-media review processes.
Takes 3 minutes. Answer honestly based on your actual process, not your aspirational one.
Answer Yes or No based on what genuinely happens on most of your projects, not the exception cases.
See your weighted score out of 100 and which band — Chaotic to Excellent — your process falls into.
Every "no" answer surfaces a specific, actionable recommendation tied to that gap.
Start with the highest-weighted recommendations — they typically produce the biggest reduction in revision rounds.
Anyone running a client feedback process who suspects it could be tighter.
Run it across your account roster to spot which accounts or teams have the weakest feedback processes and need the most support.
Use it before bringing on new account managers or freelancers to make sure everyone is following the same structured approach.
Score your process for each client relationship — the gaps often differ, and this surfaces exactly where to tighten things up.
It measures how structured your feedback and approval process is across 10 weighted factors: consolidation of feedback into one place, named sign-off authority, capped revision rounds, fixed deadlines, pinpoint/timestamped commenting, conflict resolution, status tracking, audit logging, file locking after approval, and internal QA before client review. Each factor is weighted by how much it typically affects revision rounds and review time.
Scores of 65+ ("Structured" or "Excellent") indicate a feedback process that's keeping revision rounds and review time under control. Scores below 40 ("Chaotic") indicate that feedback is largely ad-hoc — which usually means more revision rounds, more clarification round-trips, and higher project cost than necessary, even if the creative work itself is excellent.
Unstructured feedback doesn't make the work better — it just makes producing it slower and more expensive. Two agencies can produce identical creative quality, but the one with a structured process spends fewer billable hours getting to approval, runs fewer revision rounds, and has happier clients because the process feels organised rather than chaotic.
Each of the 10 questions has a weight reflecting its typical impact on revision rounds and review time (consolidated feedback, named sign-off, and internal QA carry the highest weights). Your score is the percentage of total available weight you score "yes" on. Answering "no" to a high-weight question lowers your score more than a low-weight one, and triggers a specific recommendation.
Focus first on the highest-weighted gaps shown in your recommendations — typically consolidating feedback into one place, naming a sign-off authority, and adding an internal QA pass. These three changes alone usually produce the biggest reduction in revision rounds. Use the Client Approval Workflow Builder to turn your weak areas into a concrete checklist.
Both are useful. Run it once for your default process to get a baseline, then re-run it for any account where revisions seem to be running unusually high — the gaps often differ by client (e.g. one client always has conflicting stakeholder feedback, another never sets a deadline).
Turn your weak areas into a concrete, tailored workflow checklist.
Open toolPut a number on what an unstructured process is costing you.
Open toolEstimate review cycle time for any PDF based on pages and stakeholders.
Open toolFileFeedback gives every client one consolidated place to leave pinpoint feedback, with sign-off, status tracking, and audit logging built in — exactly what this scorecard measures.
Free plan available · No credit card required · Cancel anytime