Product updates / Guide

Version update-video assets so corrections stay traceable

Track which source assets and release facts each scene depends on. A useful version register lets an editor replace the right material and identify which approvals need to be renewed after a correction.

By AnimroUpdated 2 min readAI-assisted · independently agent-reviewed

Who this is for: Product teams preparing accurate software update communication.

What to prepare

  • The scene list with stable identifiers.
  • Source screenshots, copy and audio revisions.
  • The approved release packet and current publication candidate.

Assign stable identifiers before filenames multiply

Give scenes and source assets identifiers that remain stable when their contents change. A scene identifier describes its role, such as S03-result. A revision identifies a particular state of that scene. Avoid relying on filenames such as final-final because they do not explain which facts or assets changed.

Record dependencies, not only file locations. The same screenshot may appear in a video, thumbnail and help article. A corrected label affects every asset that uses it.

  • Scene ID and purpose.
  • Source asset ID, revision and capture version.
  • Copy revision and release-claim references.
  • Production revision and encoded output identifier.
  • Review status and the exact revision reviewed.
  • Published destinations that use the asset.

Worked example: correct a saved-view result

In this fictional production, S03 proves that a saved personal view retains its filters. The original screenshot A07-r1 accidentally shows a different owner filter. The correction creates A07-r2 with the approved example; it should not silently overwrite the reviewed source.

  • S03-result: uses A07-r2, copy C03-r1 and claim C2 from release packet R5.
  • Change reason: owner filter now matches the saved example.
  • Dependent outputs: video V4 and thumbnail T2 both use the result screen.
  • Review consequence: S03 needs factual and continuity recheck; the thumbnail needs its own inspection.
  • Archive note: keep A07-r1 identifiable as superseded so it is not selected again.

Decide what invalidates an approval

A change to visible copy, a demonstrated state or an availability condition requires renewed review of the affected claim. A layout change can also matter if it makes a qualifier harder to read. Do not treat “only visual” as automatically harmless.

The register should say which review applies to which output. Approval of a screenshot does not approve every crop or animation built from it. Conversely, a narrow correction does not require inventing a new release identifier if the underlying release facts did not change.

Handoff a current manifest

Provide the next editor with the current scene-to-asset map, the approved output identifier and the superseded versions to avoid. Include font and source-file information needed to reproduce the composition when relevant.

For publication corrections, record which destinations were replaced and when. The point is traceability, not an elaborate filing ritual: someone should be able to answer what changed, why it changed and which public asset now contains the correction.

Review checklist

  • Every scene points to exact source and copy revisions.
  • Superseded assets remain distinguishable from current ones.
  • Dependent thumbnails and other outputs are included.
  • Review status attaches to a specific output revision.
  • The handoff manifest identifies the approved publication candidate.
Explore product updates ↗