How to Review a Codex and HyperFrames Video Before Export

Open the exported draft and keep a note beside it. Review the spoken explanation first, then the timing of captions and graphics. Record each correction against that exact file so your editor can reproduce the problem.

This checklist starts after you have an edit to inspect. For choosing tools and setting up the workflow, use our video-editing guide. The checks below help you decide whether a specific draft is ready for delivery. They do not measure editing speed or promise a reduction in production costs.

1. Name the file you are reviewing

Write down the export filename, project revision and intended destination. Include its aspect ratio and resolution. Keep the original recording, cut decisions and matching transcript available without overwriting them.

A correction such as “fix the title at two minutes” becomes ambiguous after another edit removes ten seconds from the opening. Attach the note to a named version, such as lesson-review-03.mp4, and use timestamps from that file.

Before you start a long review, play the opening and a moment near the end. Confirm that you have the intended version and can hear the audio. If you received a link to a preview, also obtain the encoded draft that the editor intends to deliver. Save your review against the actual file.

2. Listen to the cuts before adjusting graphics

Listen through the spoken explanation with the source recording within reach. At an abrupt join, replay a few seconds before and after it. Compare the source when the edited sentence changes meaning or leaves a reference unexplained.

Check these moments:

• A word starts or ends at a cut. Listen for a missing consonant, clipped breath or sound jump.
• The speaker repeats a phrase. Decide whether the repetition is a retake, emphasis or a correction the viewer needs.
• The speaker introduces a condition. Confirm that the editor kept qualifications such as “for this example” or “if the account supports it.”
• A demonstration follows an instruction. Leave enough time for the viewer to locate the control before the next step.

Avoid choosing a shorter cut from the transcript alone. Speech rhythm and a speaker's expression can change which version makes sense. Mark an ambiguous passage for review rather than approving it because it reads well on the page.

3. Check timing at transitions

After a cut removes time, compare the edited video with the transcript and graphics assigned to that stage. The HyperFrames student kit workflow provides the project's editing sequence; use the instructions for your installed project when selecting files and checks.

Review the first graphic after each substantial edit. Watch a later chapter too. If a graphic misses the phrase it should explain, record both the spoken phrase and the visible arrival time. This gives the editor a specific relationship to repair.

For example, a review note could say: “In review-03 at 02:18, the checklist appears after the speaker has moved to the next step. Bring it in with the phrase ‘check the destination,’ then remove it before the screen demonstration.” These times illustrate the note format; they are not measurements from your video.

Ask the editor to confirm which transcript and media version the composition uses before changing animation offsets. Small offset adjustments can hide a mismatched timeline until a later scene.

4. Test captions and labels at viewing size

Play the draft in a window close to the size your audience will use. If the delivery is a phone-format clip, inspect a phone-sized view. Check the smallest labels, captions over bright footage and text near the frame edges.

Pause when two text elements appear together. Confirm that the viewer can read both without losing the action underneath. Look for a caption covering the cursor, a name label covering a face or a diagram extending outside the frame.

Compare names, numbers and technical terms against the recording and supplied source material. A readable caption can still contain the wrong word. Record factual corrections separately from preferences about font, color or animation so the editor can prioritize them.

5. Give each correction a completion check

Use one row per issue. Separate an observed problem from the result you want:

Field	Example review note
Version	lesson-review-03.mp4
Timestamp	02:18–02:23
Observation	The step label covers the cursor during the demonstration.
Requested change	Move the label clear of the demonstrated control.
Completion check	The label remains readable and the cursor stays visible through the click.
Review state	Open until checked in the next encoded draft.

The example is illustrative. Replace its details with observations from your file. Keep the list short enough that the editor can distinguish required fixes from optional refinements.

You can give Codex this review instruction with the issue list:

Use the named project and export revision. Address the listed issues while preserving approved content and source files. Show which assets or timings changed, produce the required draft through the existing project workflow, and return its exact path. Keep any unresolved issue visible in the review note.

Add the existing project's authorization limits before an operation that uploads source media, uses paid generation or publishes a result. A review request does not require another transcription or image-generation purchase.

6. Recheck the export and the delivery copy

In the next encoded draft, revisit each issue and the transitions around it. Recheck later graphics if the editor changed timing. If the edit changed a shared caption style, inspect several scenes that use that style.

Before approving delivery, watch the complete final export and listen to its audio. Confirm that it includes the intended beginning and ending and that your editor has resolved the required notes. Keep the final filename, revision and review note together.

After an authorized upload, check playback and captions at the destination. Retain the editable project and untouched recording for future revisions. For excerpts in another aspect ratio, review the crop and text placement again; approval of the horizontal master does not establish the quality of a vertical version.

If you need help building a reviewable AI-assisted content workflow for your business, contact AIBB.