Every review round runs on the same small set of decisions - which export preset, which link controls, how many rounds, what makes a note actionable - and the cost of re-deciding them every project is quiet inconsistency: a watermarked cut here, a naked link there, a four-round drift on every job. This cheat sheet puts the decisions in reference tables - settings, not essays - so the whole team runs the same defaults. The process-level companion (what happens in each phase of a round) is the video review checklist; this page is the numbers-and-toggles side of the same discipline.
Table 1: Export presets by scenario
| Scenario | Format | Resolution | Bitrate (starting point) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client review cut | H.264 MP4 | 1080p | 10-16 Mbps | AAC audio; consider a timecode burn-in if reviewers work outside the player |
| Vertical social cut | H.264 MP4 | 1080x1920 | 12-16 Mbps | Review on a phone-shaped link - the vertical review pass |
| Long-form / dailies review | H.264 MP4 | 720p-1080p | 6-10 Mbps | Keep uploads fast; proxies are fine for judging story - proxy workflow |
| Delivery master (web) | H.264 / HEVC per platform spec | Native | Platform recommendation | Clean, unmarked - never the review file |
| Archive master | ProRes 422 HQ / DNxHR HQX class | Native | N/A (mezzanine) | Follow the destination spec when one exists |
These are sane starting defaults, not gospel - the reasoning behind each choice (and when to deviate) is in what format to export for client review. The one rule that never bends: the review cut and the delivery master are different files with different settings; nothing gets delivered from the review-export preset.
Table 2: Review-link controls by scenario
| Scenario | Password | Watermark | Expiry | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard feedback round | Yes (share by a different channel) | Off unless brand-sensitive | Round end + 1 week | Off |
| Unreleased / sensitive cut | Yes | On | Short - days, not weeks | Off |
| Executive final sign-off | Yes | Off (they are judging the finished look) | Through the contract window | Off - approval happens in the tool |
| Delivery handoff | Yes | Off | Generous but real | On - this is the one link downloads belong on |
The full anatomy of these controls (what each one actually does, and the failure each prevents) is in what is a video review link; the leak-model reasoning behind watermarking is in why watermark video reviews.
Table 3: Round and note rules
| Rule | Default | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Revision rounds per project | 2-3, in the contract | Ends open-ended drift - the clause to copy is in how many revision rounds |
| Decision owner per round | One named person | Conflicting stakeholder notes get reconciled before they reach you - client feedback etiquette |
| Notes per round | Consolidated once | One round of resolved, deduplicated notes beats a drip of pings |
| Note quality | Timecode + what + desired outcome | "Music duck at 1:47 so the line lands" - templates in the comment templates |
| Fix vs preference | Named explicitly | Preferences are discussion; fixes are work - naming them keeps rounds short |
| Approval record | Approval state on the version, on the date | "Which cut was approved" is always answerable - the approval workflow |
How to make the sheet stick
Three moves turn a reference page into team behavior. Put it where decisions happen: pin it in the team workspace or drop it into the project template so the defaults are visible at the moment of creating a review link, not recalled later. Give it to clients at kickoff: the round rules and note-quality rows double as the expectations section of your kickoff email - the phrasing is ready in the review email templates. Revisit it quarterly: defaults drift (platform specs change, team norms shift), so the sheet gets the same re-verification cadence as your pricing and delivery specs.
FAQ
Is this cheat sheet the same as a review checklist?
Complementary, not the same: the checklist walks the phases of a review round (what happens before you send, during, after); this sheet holds the settings and rules those phases consume (presets, controls, round counts). Teams use both - checklist for process, cheat sheet for numbers.
Should passwords go on every review link?
Default yes - the cost is one toggle and a line in the send email; the benefit is that no cut is ever one leaked URL. The exception is genuinely public review (a cut intended for wide internal sharing inside a company), and even then expiry keeps the link finite. The mechanics are in the review link anatomy.
What bitrate should a client review export be?
For 1080p H.264, 10-16 Mbps is the sane starting band - enough for accurate judgment of motion, text, and color intent without multi-gigabyte uploads. Below that, compression artifacts start generating false feedback ("the sky looks banded") that costs more than the bitrate saved. The full export reasoning is in the export format guide.
Do these rules change for agencies vs in-house teams?
The defaults hold; the emphasis shifts. Agencies lean harder on the round rules (client-facing contracts, more stakeholders) - the persona-specific workflow is in video review for agencies; in-house teams lean harder on the approval record (executive sign-off chains) - see the marketing team workflow. The tables above are the shared floor both build on.