A review handoff needs the source, the change and the unresolved question.
Follow a fictional project-note review to see which details the next reviewer needs before continuing the work.
Original illustrative material. No regional workforce statistics, survey findings or measured time savings are reported.
Identify the version that was actually checked
Imagine two reviewers checking a draft project update on different days. The first reviewer compares a paragraph with a project note, then leaves a short message saying that the paragraph looks right. Before the second reviewer opens it, the source note changes. Without a record of the version examined, the second reviewer cannot tell whether that message still applies.
A useful handoff names the source and identifies the version or revision that supported the review. It also distinguishes when the source changed from when the review happened. Those are separate facts. If the source provides no revision information, record that limitation instead of guessing. In this fictional exercise, the goal is to make the basis of a check understandable to someone who was not present.
Explain the change and the boundary of the check
Suppose the first reviewer corrects a project label but does not check the proposed completion date. A note that says only ‘updated’ hides that boundary. A clearer record states that the label was compared with the project note and changed, while the date remains unverified. It gives the next reviewer a starting point without implying that the entire draft has been approved.
Keep the explanation close to the changed material. Describe the relevant correction and why it was made; avoid copying unrelated internal context into the handoff. A reviewer should be able to connect the explanation to the source and decide whether another check is necessary. More text does not automatically create a better record: a precise statement of what was examined is more useful than a broad assurance.
Carry the unresolved question to its next decision
The unverified date needs a next step. In the fictional example, the next reviewer might ask the project owner which schedule applies. The handoff should preserve that question and make clear that the draft remains pending on that point. A completed spelling correction does not resolve a disagreement about the underlying schedule.
When the question is answered, record which part of the draft was reconsidered and which source supported the decision. If the source changes again, reopen the affected check rather than assuming that earlier approval covers the new information. This guide describes a way to organise review context. It does not estimate how much time the process saves or claim that a particular team, region or product has achieved an outcome.