On this page
The short answer
Short answer
Use Rushilo to turn approved client feedback into a new video version: identify the exact export being reviewed, translate each note into a specific timeline change, apply a small batch on a project copy, and check the result against the request. Keep the reviewed export and revision record beside the editable project.
This workflow suits freelance editors and small agencies handling changes to an existing cut. Use your chosen review service or shared document to collect comments and record approval. Rushilo handles the desktop edit with your connected AI, a visible timeline and changes you can undo. Its product FAQ describes editing existing footage with Claude Code or Codex.
Start with the exact cut they reviewed
A note at 00:12 needs a reference. Record the review filename or version, the player timestamp and the object being discussed. “Make the title bigger at 00:12” is ambiguous if there are two titles or the client watched an earlier cut.
Before editing, keep the review export available and save a separate working project through your editor's normal save workflow. Give the next output a distinct version label. A name such as demo-v04-review.mp4 is easier to distinguish from final-new-final.mp4.
Frame.io documents comments attached to a single frame, a time range or a position on the image. Those are useful ways to identify a requested change; a timestamp alone cannot identify which object a reviewer means. Frame.io comment types
If comments come through email or chat, copy the agreed instruction into one revision record. Keep a link or reference to the original note so that a paraphrase does not silently change the request.
Turn notes into testable edit requests
For each note, record the reference version, affected object, requested result, timing behavior and a check for completion. A useful instruction describes what should change and what needs to stay stable.
This is a fictional revision round for a 60-second software demo. The names, copy and timings are illustrative, not a Rushilo customer project.
“The intro is slow.”
- Agreed edit request
- Remove the opening two-second logo-only section. Start on the first product frame.
- Check before returning v04
- New opening is intentional; audio does not begin with a clipped word.
“Fix the heading at 00:12.”
- Agreed edit request
- Change the title “New requests” to “Requests awaiting review.” Keep its duration and layout unless it no longer fits.
- Check before returning v04
- Correct title object and spelling; no clipped line or covered control.
“The music fights the voice from 00:22 to 00:30.”
- Agreed edit request
- Reduce the music clip gain by 3 dB over that reference section, with a short transition into and out of the change.
- Check before returning v04
- Narration remains clear and the gain change does not create an abrupt step.
“Add a stronger result number.”
- Agreed edit request
- Hold for approved wording and supporting evidence.
- Check before returning v04
- No new performance number is introduced while the request is unresolved.
| Note on demo-v03 | Agreed edit request | Check before returning v04 |
|---|---|---|
| “The intro is slow.” | Remove the opening two-second logo-only section. Start on the first product frame. | New opening is intentional; audio does not begin with a clipped word. |
| “Fix the heading at 00:12.” | Change the title “New requests” to “Requests awaiting review.” Keep its duration and layout unless it no longer fits. | Correct title object and spelling; no clipped line or covered control. |
| “The music fights the voice from 00:22 to 00:30.” | Reduce the music clip gain by 3 dB over that reference section, with a short transition into and out of the change. | Narration remains clear and the gain change does not create an abrupt step. |
| “Add a stronger result number.” | Hold for approved wording and supporting evidence. | No new performance number is introduced while the request is unresolved. |
The 3 dB adjustment is an example starting change, not an audio delivery target. Listen in context and inspect the finished mix. The music-under-dialogue guide explains a fuller mixing workflow.
Download the blank client revision tracker. It includes fields for the original note, decision owner, approved instruction and observed result. It is a planning sheet, not an automatic timeline-import format.
When reviewers disagree, record the decision that resolves the conflict before applying that item. “Keep the full introduction” and “cut the introduction in half” need a chosen direction. Independent spelling or factual corrections can still be prepared while that decision is pending.
Plan edits that move later timestamps
Treat client timestamps as coordinates in the reviewed export. They may stop matching the working timeline after a cut, insertion or speed change.
In the fictional example, assume the only timing change is removal of exactly two seconds at the beginning. A title beginning at 12 seconds in v03 would begin at 10 seconds in v04. The reviewed music section from 22 to 30 seconds would move to 20 to 28 seconds.
The simple mapping is new time = reviewed time - 2 seconds. It applies only after that single opening cut, with no other timing changes. Multiple edits, transitions or changed clip speeds require a fresh check rather than repeated subtraction from memory.
Keep both references in the revision log: “v03 at 00:12, now v04 at 00:10.” Also name the clip or title. That gives you a way to find the intended object even when timings move again.
Caption timing needs the same attention. If an external subtitle file still refers to the old cut, diagnose the mismatch using the subtitle-sync workflow. A global timing shift is appropriate only when the error is a known constant offset; it cannot repair arbitrary changes throughout an edit.
Give your agent one controlled revision batch
In Rushilo, connect your own Claude Code, Codex or another supported client using the setup instructions. Select or identify the relevant timeline objects, then provide the approved notes and the reference version.
Start with one small batch whose result you can inspect. Use explicit outcomes instead of “apply all client feedback,” especially when notes contain unresolved creative choices.
Reference export: demo-v03-review.mp4
Working project: a separate copy for v04
Timestamp basis: elapsed seconds in the reference export
Approved items:
R01: Remove only the opening 0-2 seconds of logo-only footage.
R02: Locate the title reading "New requests" at 12-16 seconds in v03.
Change its wording to "Requests awaiting review". Keep its duration.
R03: Reduce the music gain by 3 dB across the section corresponding to
22-30 seconds in v03. Keep narration unchanged and review the boundaries.
Pending item:
R04: Do not add a result number. Approved wording is still missing.
Account for timing movement caused by R01 when locating R02 and R03.
Before editing, identify the objects and proposed new timings.
After the batch, summarize the changes and any unresolved match.
Prepare a review export; do not send it or mark client approval.The example brief requests a workflow; verify that the connected editor supports each operation and inspect what it actually does. The MCP editor evaluation checklist provides a repeatable way to test changes, recovery and export before relying on a connector.
Use approved project material in the agent request. Rushilo stores projects and media locally, while connected providers receive the inputs needed for their requests. Review the local-versus-cloud processing guide when deciding what context to supply.
Check picture, sound and captions together
Review each requested change against the original reference, then play the complete exported file outside the editor. A corrected title can still arrive too late; a clean visual cut can still interrupt a sentence.
Requested objects
- What to inspect
- The intended title, clip or audio section changed; similar objects elsewhere stayed correct.
Cut boundaries
- What to inspect
- The opening, closing frames and each changed boundary preserve the action and spoken meaning.
Sound
- What to inspect
- Narration is intelligible, music changes are smooth and the output has no unexpected silence.
Captions
- What to inspect
- Wording agrees with the final speech; timings follow the new cut; labels remain visible.
Delivery
- What to inspect
- Correct version, dimensions and requested files open in the destination player.
| Review pass | What to inspect |
|---|---|
| Requested objects | The intended title, clip or audio section changed; similar objects elsewhere stayed correct. |
| Cut boundaries | The opening, closing frames and each changed boundary preserve the action and spoken meaning. |
| Sound | Narration is intelligible, music changes are smooth and the output has no unexpected silence. |
| Captions | Wording agrees with the final speech; timings follow the new cut; labels remain visible. |
| Delivery | Correct version, dimensions and requested files open in the destination player. |
W3C explains that automatic captions need accuracy review. Check names and negations as well as timing, particularly after speech edits. A clean transcript before the revision does not establish correct captions after it. W3C caption guidance
Return a version and a change log
Prepare the new review export with a short record of applied, pending and declined items. Include old-to-new timestamp references where they moved. “R01-R03 applied; R04 awaiting approved wording” is clearer than “All done.”
If you use a hosted review platform, keep its version history and comments associated with the appropriate cut. Vimeo, for example, documents retained comments and a separate review status in its version-management workflow. Follow the actual platform's behavior rather than assuming that replacing a file resets feedback. Vimeo version management
A resolved note records work on that note. Final acceptance should identify the specific deliverable and the person authorized to accept it in your project process. Preserve that decision with the export and editable project.
Start the next revision round with the tracker and the exact review file. Connect your AI to Rushilo when the approved changes are ready, inspect the batch, and retain the previous cut for comparison.
Sources
- Frame.io comment typesSingle-frame, range and anchored comments. Dated June 19, 2026; retrieved October 14, 2026.
- Vimeo version managementVersion history, preserved comments and separate review status; options can vary by plan.
- Rushilo product and FAQMac/Windows desktop editing with connected AI, visible timeline and undo; local storage with provider requests. Checked October 14, 2026.
- W3C caption guidanceReview automatic captions for accuracy and synchronize important audio content.
Cite this page
Last verified: Oct 14, 2026
Patel, O. (2026, October 14). Client video revisions: turn feedback into a checked edit. Rushilo. https://rushilo.com/use-cases/client-video-revisions
About the author
Founder, Rushilo
Om Patel is the founder of Rushilo, a desktop video editor driven by the user's own AI, and of BigIdeasDB, a research platform that reads real complaints and reviews to help founders validate products. He writes Rushilo's research articles with the same method: primary sources, dated numbers and the words real users write.
