Client revisions for freelance work: clear feedback and agreed changes.

Separate corrections, included revisions and additional work.

Read each comment alongside the brief, supplied material and accepted scope. The client’s label does not determine the category. A “small correction” may mean an export error or an entirely new asset. Explain the distinction using the facts rather than deciding from the wording alone.

A practical example for visual design work

These examples do not replace an assessment of your agreement. Correcting your own error does not automatically become paid work because the stated commercial rounds have ended. Equally, a politely phrased request is not necessarily included in the initial price.

Clarify cases that are not obvious

Ask what the client wants to achieve and compare it with the agreed outcome. If you interpret the brief differently, summarise the disputed point before pricing or editing it. An explained classification is more useful than a reply consisting only of “included” or “out of scope”. Keep the discussion attached to the result expected.

Give a revision round a concrete meaning.

A round can mean consolidated feedback on an identified version, topic and agreed date, followed by its treatment in another version. Describe the arrangement when scoping the work. Without a definition, one person may count each email while the other expects unlimited changes until satisfied.

An example, not a two-round standard

For a presentation, you might agree on a first combined response to structure and layout, followed by another review of the adjustments retained. “Two rounds” is a commercial example to discuss, not a required number or a suitable arrangement for every service.

Specify what is assessed at each stage and how late information will be handled. A forgotten comment, an error needing correction and a new direction do not automatically become three separate rounds. The number needs to be understood alongside the scope and each person’s obligations, not used as a substitute for them.

Choose one person to consolidate feedback

Identify the contact responsible for the common list and final decisions. They may consult several contributors, but should distinguish an individual opinion from the direction actually retained. Check their role before beginning another version so you know which response you can use.

In Dealokr, you can describe deliverables and revisions in the signed agreement. It provides a reference when you present the preview and review feedback. You can explain what the project covers without inventing a limit after the comments have arrived.

Ask for consolidated feedback on an identified version.

Give the material a reference and ask for a location, observation and intended result. “Page 4, replace the heading with the attached text” is actionable. “Change the tone” needs another question about the audience, meaning or effect the client wants.

A feedback request to personalise

Specify a simple response channel: comments attached to a location or a structured list, depending on the material. Do not require the client to repeat the same observation in several tools. Ask for clarification where a comment does not yet tell you what should change.

In Dealokr, the preview, revision requests and project history help you find what was presented and the associated exchanges. Use that record to connect comments with the project. Classifying requests and pricing a new requirement still need a discussion with the client; the record supports that conversation.

Recap the retained changes and resolve contradictions.

Before reopening the working file, prepare a short list: point, interpretation, proposed treatment and any question. That helps avoid producing an adjustment based on an old comment while contradicting a more recent decision. You can see what is ready to apply and what still needs an answer.

Ask for a decision on incompatible requests

If one person wants a section removed and another wants it expanded, present the choice to the decision-maker. You can recommend an option and explain its consequences. Do not combine incompatible directions simply to give the impression that every comment has been addressed.

A summary to confirm the classification

The classification is a proposal to clarify, not an automatic invoice. Keep the original feedback and response. If a point remains open, state its effect on the next version instead of quietly treating it as withdrawn. A missing answer should remain visible as a question still to resolve.

Get agreement on additional scope, price and scheduling.

When a request adds an asset, functionality or a new direction outside the accepted scope, describe the change. Assess the work and dependencies before proposing a price. An amount added at the end without discussion does not replace agreement on an additional service.

A proposal for acceptance before production

Keep the contract as the reference

Under French law, a legally formed contract binds the parties. It may be modified by mutual consent or on grounds authorised by law. Sending a proposal does not, by the act of writing it, establish an accepted new price. Seek an appropriate assessment where the particular contractual position is disputed.

Confirm what happens to the original work too: continued, rescheduled or replaced under the agreement reached. Do not present a new need as an existing obligation, or the correction of an error as an automatic scope extension.

Name versions and keep the previous decisions.

Connect each feedback list to the version reviewed. A consistent name such as “presentation-v03-review” helps identify the right material. Give the next version a new reference, with a summary of the changes applied. The recipient should not need to compare every page to discover what moved.

Do not overwrite material already commented on

Keep the presented version and relevant exchanges before replacing the current material. Your client should be able to understand why a comment was handled and which decision informs the next step. The aim is a readable history, not an accumulation of files called “final2” or “latest-version”.

In a brief change log, identify the points applied, those still open and what remains unchanged. If a suggestion was not followed, explain why or identify the choice still needed. Do not present an omission as approval simply because it no longer appears in the current list.

Handle new requests after approval

A change after agreement on a version needs a clear account of what it affects. Some points may remain settled while another is reopened. Keep the original decision and new request together without treating approval as a general waiver of the client’s rights.

If another review is necessary, identify the version and specific topics concerned. You can then resume work without unnecessarily repeating the whole discussion or losing points already confirmed. Record the response alongside the updated reference.

Confirm the retained version before final-file handoff.

Once adjustments are addressed, request a decision on the new reference and identify any reservations. Avoid declaring the project finished solely because the stated number of rounds has been reached. The agreed outcome, obligations and client’s response still need to be considered.

Connect review and handoff in the right order

For fixed-price work in Dealokr, the client pays 100% upfront through Stripe Connect. The preview and revisions follow. You request the transfer under the project’s conditions, then the client gains access to hosted final files after confirmation. Bank arrival remains separate; a comment or date does not automatically trigger the transfer.

A first milestone transfer does not unlock every file. For externally hosted links, permissions remain managed in the relevant service. Check the materials and access being handed over instead of assuming that a positive reply completes every technical step.

Finish the review without losing open points

Summarise the retained version, changes made and any points to handle separately. Confirm who does what next and when. A short but specific record lets you revisit a later question from the same agreement instead of reconstructing several conflicting recollections.

For the next project, adjust your revision arrangements using what you learned: topics assessed, decision-maker, channel and realistic timing. The framework should help people work together without turning every comment into a disagreement over how many rounds remain.