Before approving a video production statement of work (SOW), compare it with the brief your team agreed. Check the inputs, outputs, responsibilities, review stages and handoff. Send unresolved differences to the people who own the decision.
Use this scope checklist once you have a brief and proposed statement of work. Record the differences and questions your project owners need to resolve. It does not supply contract clauses or interpret their legal effect.
Start with the current brief and proposal
Identify the version of each document you are comparing. Record its owner and date, then mark any earlier version as superseded in your working notes. An old attachment can describe a different project from the one discussed in a meeting.
List the audience, message, intended uses and launch date. Separate approved decisions from open questions. Use the production process guide to identify the planning, shoot and edit stages your project actually needs.
Cross-check the work described
For each row, quote or link to the relevant part of the actual project document. Record an unanswered question as unknown; a blank cell is not an agreement.
| Area | What to compare | Decision owner to identify |
|---|---|---|
| Inputs | Available footage, script, brand assets, locations and people. | Who supplies each item and confirms it is ready? |
| Production work | Creative development, filming, animation, editing and finishing actually requested. | Who confirms included work and unresolved assumptions? |
| Outputs | Distinct edits, versions, languages, captions and file requirements. | Who approves the output list and destination requirements? |
| Reviews | Review stages, consolidated feedback and required approvals. | Who gathers notes and who can approve each stage? |
| Timing | Input availability, production dates, review time and launch dependencies. | Who confirms each dependency or responds to a delay? |
| Handoff | Final exports, any other agreed files and the transfer arrangement. | Who receives the files and checks the delivery? |
Use the version matrix for a detailed output list. Compare the actual proposal with that list instead of treating a broad phrase such as “social versions” as a complete specification.
Give changes a clear route
Ask the project owners how a proposed change will be assessed. Record who describes it, who checks its effect on work and timing, and who approves the revised scope. Keep those decisions with the version of the brief they change.
Distinguish a correction to approved information from a new deliverable or a change of direction. Describe the request in plain language so the production and review teams can assess the same thing. Refer to the agreed project terms when deciding how the work proceeds.
Keep specialist questions with their reviewers
Identify the people responsible for reviewing usage permissions, confidential material, security requirements and contract wording. Give them the intended channels, material and delivery arrangements, plus the specific questions still unresolved.
The vendor intake worksheet helps record who supplies supporting information and who reviews it. This checklist does not establish that a vendor or agreement meets your organisation's requirements.
Separate delivery checks from performance measurement
Record how your team will check the delivered files against the agreed outputs. Assign responsibility for viewing each final version, checking approved wording and confirming the correct files have been received.
If you plan to assess a business result after launch, identify the measurement owner and evidence separately. The post-launch evidence guide explains why delivery of a film alone does not establish an effect on pipeline or revenue.
Finish with an issue list showing the document reference, question, owner and decision needed. Resolve the open items with the relevant project reviewers before approval. Bring that list when you discuss the production scope.
The original article was credited to Matthew Watts. This substantive revision was prepared by Viva Media with AI assistance; it does not imply Matthew personally reviewed it.
