When two client reviewers ask for incompatible changes, identify the decision they need to make before you revise the work. Put the comments beside the agreed purpose, describe the conflict and ask the appropriate client contact to confirm one direction. Quietly choosing whichever comment arrived last can leave the disagreement unresolved.
This guide is for the practical moment when a draft has several sets of comments and you need a usable next step. It provides an original decision-list format and a fictional brochure example. It does not set contractual rights, decide what is billable or replace the review process already agreed with your client.
Establish which draft everyone reviewed
Start with the file or page version. A supposed disagreement may disappear when you discover that one person reviewed an earlier draft. Give the current review copy a clear identifier, such as “brochure draft 03, shared 9 October,” and put it at the top of your feedback record.
Collect comments in one place without changing their meaning. You might link to the original messages and write a short summary beside each. Keep the source and date so that a question about wording can be resolved without relying on your memory.
Do not silently transfer a comment to a new location after the layout changes. If a reviewer referred to “the paragraph below the photo,” identify that paragraph in the version they saw. A location that seems obvious today may not exist in the next draft.
Where comments arrive through several channels, tell the client which list you will use for the next revision. You can consolidate the material yourself while asking the client contact to resolve incompatible instructions. Consolidation means making the information usable; it does not give you authority to decide internal client priorities.
Sort comments before treating them as instructions
Read each note and ask what kind of response it needs. Some identify a clear mismatch with supplied information. Others express a preference, ask a question or introduce a change to the agreed deliverable.
For this worksheet, use four working labels: correction, clarification, choice and possible scope change. These labels help organise a conversation; they do not determine fees or contractual obligations.
| Comment | Working label | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| The supplied opening time is wrong on page two | Correction | Check the approved information and correct the mismatch |
| This section feels too busy | Clarification | Ask which information is hard to find or understand |
| Remove the price table; another reviewer says enlarge it | Choice | Ask the client to select the purpose and direction |
| Add a second brochure for another audience | Possible scope change | Discuss deliverable, timing and terms before promising it |
This is consistent with the limited distinction in Asana’s change-control guidance: a request is assessed before an authorised decision is recorded and implemented. You do not need Asana or a formal review board to use the distinction in a small freelance project.
The important separation is between a comment existing and a change being agreed. “A reviewer suggested another brochure” should not become “I have promised another brochure” simply because you put the suggestion on a task list.
Describe the conflict without assigning blame
Write the two directions in plain terms. “Keep the technical detail on the first page” and “remove technical detail from the first page” describe a genuine choice. “Make it cleaner” and “make it more useful” may be compatible once the reviewers explain what they mean.
Avoid describing people as difficult or indecisive. Keep the decision list about the work: “These requests need different uses of the first-page space” is easier to resolve than “Your team keeps contradicting itself.”
Then connect the conflict to the audience and purpose already agreed. If the brochure is meant to help a first-time visitor identify the right service, ask which information that visitor needs at this point. Do not invent a new objective merely to make your preferred design win.
If the brief does not settle the question, say so. You can present the missing decision instead of pretending there is an objective answer hidden in the design. Your expertise can inform the trade-off while the client retains responsibility for its business priorities.
Build a short decision list
Give each unresolved choice its own row. For this format, include the current version, the question, the options, your assessment, the decision owner and the response needed. A long comment thread can sit behind a link rather than fill the working list.
Use options that the client can distinguish. “Option A: short summary on page one, full specifications on page two” and “Option B: full specifications on page one, shorter introduction” are clearer than “clean version” and “detailed version.” Both descriptions should explain what the reader gains or loses.
Your assessment can be brief: “I recommend A because the agreed first-page task is identifying the service, while page two has space for comparison.” Mark this as a recommendation, not an approved instruction.
Finally, name who will consolidate the answer. If you do not know, ask the client contact to identify that person. An audience of five reviewers is not automatically five separate approvers, and a senior job title alone does not tell you the project’s decision process.
Worked example: a two-page service brochure
Imagine a freelance designer receives feedback on a fictional two-page brochure. The sales reviewer wants a large price table on page one. The service manager wants the same space used for eligibility details. Both say their information must appear before the reader contacts the business.
The designer’s first move is to clarify whether either requirement can be met on page two. Suppose the client confirms that both may appear there, but one needs a short signpost on page one. The original conflict has become a smaller, answerable choice.
| Decision | Option A | Option B |
|---|---|---|
| Main first-page signpost | Highlight starting prices and direct readers to eligibility details | Highlight who the service is for and direct readers to pricing |
| What stays unchanged | Full price and eligibility information on page two | Full price and eligibility information on page two |
| Client question | Is price comparison the first task for this audience? | Is identifying eligibility the first task for this audience? |
The designer recommends B based on the agreed audience description. The client contact confirms B and asks for a short price reference in the footer. The final record states the chosen arrangement and the actual words or information to be supplied. It does not record merely “go with your recommendation,” which could become ambiguous later.
If the client cannot choose, the designer can identify what is needed to make the decision. That may be a conversation with the service manager or clearer audience information. Making two polished alternatives is another piece of work to discuss, not the only possible response to uncertainty.
Send a message that makes replying easy
A short message can separate work you can progress from choices that need an answer. Here is original sample wording to adapt:
“I have grouped the comments on draft 03 into confirmed corrections and two open decisions. The opening-time correction is clear. For decision D1, the first-page priority is either pricing or eligibility; the attached list shows what changes in each option. I recommend eligibility based on the agreed audience. Please confirm A or B through the nominated review contact. I will confirm the revised delivery timing once those decisions are settled.”
Notice what this message avoids promising. It does not assume that silence counts as approval, assign a fee automatically or guarantee an unchanged deadline after a delayed decision. Any timing or commercial change should follow the agreement and a clear discussion.
If you need to reset the overall review process, the guide to handling freelance revisions covers rounds and consolidated feedback. Keep the current decision message focused on the specific choices preventing useful revision.
Record the answer before closing the comments
When the client responds, copy the decision into the list with its source and date. Keep any conditions: “Use option B once the service manager supplies the eligibility wording” is not an unconditional instruction to invent that wording yourself.
Then connect the decision to the revised version. Your delivery note might say, “Draft 04 implements D1 using the eligibility signpost and the supplied wording.” This gives the reviewer a clear place to check whether the decision was carried out.
Leave unresolved matters visibly open. A clean-looking list with unanswered questions marked complete is less useful than a short list that accurately shows what remains. If a new direction changes the agreed deliverable, return to the project scope guide before absorbing it into the current revision.
You can also preserve communication boundaries without making the client feel ignored. State where new comments belong and when you will review them, using the approach in setting freelance boundaries. The finished decision list should let both sides see what was asked, what was chosen and which version implements it.