Identify the asset and version before commenting
Feedback needs to point to a specific file and the version you are assessing. Save the displayed image, give it an identifier and attach the observation to it. If the team cannot tell which composition a note refers to, the next revision begins with uncertainty that could easily have been avoided.
In my image assessment process, I requested a gallery where I could classify each piece and write notes about it. The options distinguished approval, a need for changes and rejection, accompanied by the reason. I also asked for changes to preserve earlier versions so I would not lose what was being compared.
This organisation lets you say “in version two of this piece, enlarge the title” without relying on the order of images in a conversation. If several people comment, everyone needs to be looking at the same reference. A valid comment about an older version may request an unnecessary change to the current one.
The status should also be explicit. “I like this direction” may mean approval of the style while leaving the wording open for review. “Approved for publication” has a different consequence. Define what you are accepting at each stage so a partial preference is not interpreted as permission to consider the asset finished.
When giving AI relevant context, include this reference and its associated note. Sending an entire folder of unidentified versions forces AI to guess which one should guide the revision. History helps when a decision is attached to it, rather than simply when files accumulate in one place.
To prepare your next step, explore Developing applications with AI.
Turn a preference into a verifiable observation
A useful observation explains what makes reading or communication difficult and which change is wanted. Locate the element, describe its relationship with the rest of the piece and state the purpose. Expressions such as “stronger” or “more attractive” need this development if they are to guide a concrete revision effectively.
Imagine a hypothetical cover where the subtitle occupies more space than the main message. Instead of asking for greater impact, you could say: “The subtitle attracts attention first; reduce its weight and keep the title as the first element to read.” The person reviewing can compare that outcome with the previous version.
In another example, text may be readable in the opened file but disappear when the image is viewed on a phone. The request could be to enlarge essential words and reduce secondary text. Assessment should happen at the size in which the asset will actually be used by its intended audience.
Distinguish problems with wording, hierarchy, colour and composition. If the message is wrong, changing the background colour does not correct the statement. If the title sits too close to the edge, a new photograph can create work without resolving the difficulty. Choosing the right element reduces revisions that change much and clarify little.
Not every preference is a permanent rule. You may like a dark composition for one piece and prefer a light background for another because of its image or destination. Save the reason and context of the choice. A local note should not automatically turn every subsequent creation into a copy of that solution.
Write down the decisions the revision must preserve
Alongside the change, identify the elements already approved: wording, photograph, brand, proportions, colours or block positions. Explain which may be adjusted and which must retain the original. These boundaries help assess the next proposal and avoid confusing a local correction with an invitation to explore a completely new visual direction.
In a hypothetical request, I would write: “Keep the original photograph, logo and block positions; change only the title size so it is readable in the final format.” The instruction makes comparison objective. If the new version changes the background or rewrites the message, it still does not meet the request.
Brands deserve their own attention. An event's identity may differ from the personal brand of its organiser. If AI only receives personal references, it may carry those colours and signatures into an asset belonging to another brand. Supply the correct originals and identify which brand governs that particular image.
In my case, the distinction between my personal brand and AdSummit needs to be explicit in the context. The event has its own identity. I also retain official names and logos, including Laboratório da IA, when adapting materials into another language. Translating a message does not authorise redesigning a brand.
When a real photograph is involved, preserve the original file and define the editing boundaries. A wording correction should not reconstruct the person's face. If the tool changes areas that should remain intact, the result needs reviewing and a different compositing approach, rather than acceptance simply because the title looks better.
Compare the correction with the original request
Assess the revision beside the previous version and the note that prompted it. First confirm whether the identified problem was resolved, then look for changes outside the request. A more appealing image can still be wrong if it lost wording, changed the brand or altered a photograph that had already been approved.
I would separate these two checks. In the first, I would look for the requested change: a larger title, better contrast or a corrected margin. In the second, I would compare protected elements. This sequence prevents satisfaction with the most visible improvement from hiding a regression elsewhere in the piece.
Check spelling word by word, especially in short headlines and translations. An image can look correct from a distance while containing a wrong accent, a substituted letter or a word still in the previous language. Checking the request's text is insufficient; you need to read what appears in the final file.
Also check the crop and intended use. A horizontal composition adapted to vertical may lose information or put the title too close to interface elements where it will appear. Preserving identity does not mean mechanically retaining every position when the format changes. That adaptation should be requested and assessed as a distinct change.
If the goal is to explore different directions, explicitly open that stage. The work of preparing advertising variations with AI allows different ideas and presentations to be compared. When revising a piece already selected, the criterion differs: resolve the observation while retaining what has already been approved for that asset.
Save lessons with the right scope
After accepting the revision, record the final version, the decision and the reason that may be useful later. Separate brand rules from preferences about that particular piece. Before producing more images, confirm that current references and instructions reflect the latest decisions and that rejected versions are no longer guiding the work.
A useful record might say the title needed more contrast for reading on a phone. That guides checks on new pieces without imposing the same background on all of them. The requirement to use the original logo, meanwhile, is an identity rule that applies for as long as the brand retains it.
Saving feedback does not mean the model has been retrained or will automatically remember everything. The project needs to make those notes available for the next task and identify which ones remain in force. Consistency depends on that context and reviewing results, without dispensing with checks on newly created images.
Before increasing production, validate a sample representing the planned formats and content types. If a rule works on a cover with two words, it may need adapting for an explanatory figure. Correcting this difference early avoids repeating an unsuitable interpretation across an entire collection of materials that then needs another revision.
The same care appears when defining requirements before building an application: explicit decisions make results verifiable. In visual feedback, the next version should answer a concrete observation. When you can explain what changed, why and what was preserved, the revision has a clear point at which the work can be considered complete.