How this works in FrescoAds
Use the system as one operating record
Comments explain work; approvals release responsibility. FrescoAds keeps the asset, current version, review path and decision history together so teams can distinguish advice from a required decision. Only reviewers configured as required should block release.
- Named review stages
- Required and optional reviewers
- Version-attached comments
- Market and format readiness
Define the review path
Choose the decision types required for the asset according to campaign risk: creative, brand, market, legal or business. Identify which decisions are required and which participants are advisory.
Assign a named owner and due date to every required stage. A shared comment thread without decision ownership is not an approval path.
Check before continuing
- Decision type and scope
- Required versus optional status
- Named reviewer
- Due date and escalation owner
Prepare the review context
Submit a reviewable current version with the source brief, intended markets and placements, changes from the prior version and the exact question the reviewer must answer.
Do not ask a legal reviewer to evaluate strategy or a market reviewer to infer which version is current. Scope keeps decisions accountable and faster to resolve.
Check before continuing
- Current version is explicit
- Brief and sources are accessible
- Change summary is included
- Decision request is specific
Review the asset—not an isolated comment
Assess the complete asset within the assigned scope. Reviewers can approve, request changes or decline. Comments should identify whether an issue blocks release, requires clarification or is optional advice.
Every comment stays attached to the version reviewed. A later edit does not silently inherit the earlier decision.
Check before continuing
- No outdated version is approved
- Blocking issues are labelled
- Requested change has an owner
- Optional advice is distinguishable
Submit an accountable decision
Record the decision, reviewer, time, version and scope. An approval should identify exactly what was accepted; a change request should identify the unresolved requirement.
A reviewer should not approve work outside their responsibility merely to advance status.
Check before continuing
- Decision and identity recorded
- Version and market scope are clear
- Conditions or expiry are visible
- Next responsible person is known
Reopen only affected decisions
When a new version is submitted, compare what changed with the scope of earlier approvals. Reopen the decisions affected by the change and preserve unaffected decisions where policy permits.
Changes to claims, product, offer, rights or market copy may require different reviewers than a purely technical format correction.
Check before continuing
- Change is linked to the request
- Affected stages are reopened
- Unaffected history remains visible
- Current approval state is unambiguous
Move the decision into readiness
Once every configured required decision is complete, update the exact market and placement version as approved. Export remains unavailable while mandatory checks are open.
Approval can also expire when campaign, offer or rights validity ends; the release record should preserve that condition.
Check before continuing
- All required decisions are complete
- Correct version is marked approved
- Readiness state reflects the decision
- Expiry or condition is recorded
Common questions
Clarify the operating boundary
Yes. Their participation remains visible, while only configured required decisions block release.