At a glance
A useful proof workflow identifies the job, version, authorised approver, decision scope, comments and release state. A comment is not automatically approval, and an approval is not automatically a production instruction unless the agreed controls say so.
01 / Trigger and problem
Issue a proof when there is a defined decision to make.
The trigger is an artwork version ready for a named person to review against an accepted scope. State whether the decision covers layout, wording, dimensions, colour, finish, illumination, location or only selected items.
A generic ‘approved’ email cannot resolve an unclear scope. The workflow should stop old versions, informal comments and site-dependent assumptions from being mistaken for production release.
02 / Inputs, owners and output
Separate comment, commercial change and production release.
Artwork owns the version and issue record. The authorised customer-side approver owns the scoped decision. Commercial ownership reviews changes that affect price or timing. Production accepts only the identified released version. The output is a proof decision record plus an explicit release or return state.
| Input | Responsible owner | Concrete output |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted scope and site reference | Commercial owner | Proof review basis |
| Versioned artwork and issue note | Artwork owner | Controlled proof package |
| Scoped comments or approval | Named approver | Dated decision record |
| Price, timing or production effect | Commercial / production owner | Variation, hold or release |
03 / Fictional process artefact
A changed request should create a new decision.
This is a fictional vehicle graphics example. Artwork V02 is returned because rear-door scope is absent. V03 adds that area, but a return-colour request could affect material and price, so the commercial owner reviews it. V02 remains superseded and V03 remains unreleased until vehicle availability is confirmed.
04 / Current state
A sample approval stage is demonstrated; proof sending and identity checks are not.
The website supplies a blank approval record and a fictional sample workflow. It does not send proofs, identify an approver, create an electronic signature, control production files or make acceptance legally binding. Those behaviours are application-dependent or unverified.
| State | Inspectable now | Not proven |
|---|---|---|
| Implemented on this website | Downloadable blank artwork approval record | No workflow persistence or sending |
| Demonstrated | Fictional version and stage context | No customer approval or production use |
| Application dependent | Identity, permissions, audit and controlled release | Needs representative product evidence |
05 / Prerequisites and limitations
Approval works only when authority and scope are clear.
Set an approver policy, version convention, accepted channels, response ownership, retention and release rules. Define what happens when a contact comments without authority, when site facts change or when a request affects price, timing, IP, planning or technical compliance.
The workflow does not decide intellectual-property ownership, contractual liability or regulatory acceptance. Use approved terms and appropriate professional advice.
06 / Fit and next action
Test whether the record prevents the wrong version reaching production.
This pattern may fit teams that lose comments across email, cannot identify the current proof or release changes informally. It is not a current fit for a buyer needing verified digital signatures, customer portals, automated proof sending or legally assured acceptance.
Use the blank approval record with synthetic details, then compare it with the artwork approval process and sample workspace. A workflow conversation should test one version-change path and document the evidence still needed.