Creative Asset Approval template

Record a review decision against the exact creative asset someone has seen. This template collects the version, intended use, reviewer responsibility and review date. Approved responses skip the corrections question; Changes requested and Unable to review require an explanation so the delivery owner knows what happens next.

11 questions · Free plan: 500 responses/month · fully customizable

  • Editable cover artwork
  • 1 built-in logic rule
Interactive — fill it in like a respondent would.Open full width

What’s inside

The questions this template ships with — rename, reorder, or delete any of them in the builder.

01Project or client nameShort text
02Your nameShort text
03Reply emailEmail
04Asset name and version identifierShort text
05Link to the asset reviewedWebsite
06Which channel, size and intended use did you review?Long text
07Review decisionMultiple choice
08What must change or what prevents a review?Long text
09Review dateDate
10Your review responsibilityShort text
11Limits, exclusions or follow-up checks on this decisionLong text

When to use this template

Tips to get more from it

Make the approval specific enough to use

Approval without a version is hard to apply when several exports exist. Pair an asset link with a name such as Spring launch, portrait, English, v05. Record the intended use and the person's review responsibility so an approval of copy is not mistaken for confirmation of every visual or technical requirement.

If a shared file can be overwritten, preserve the reviewed version in your existing asset repository. The form records what the reviewer states, but it does not freeze an external file or prove that the person has authority to bind the organization.

Handle changes and incomplete reviews

Choose Changes requested when the asset needs a specific correction. Choose Unable to review when the reviewer cannot access the file, lacks context or is not the right person. Both paths keep the explanation field visible and required; an approved response skips it.

Send the new version through review after a material correction, and preserve the previous decision as history. The delivery owner should check whether other reviews remain outstanding before publishing. A form response is a review record, not an electronic signature workflow or an automatic release of the asset.

Example response and next steps

Illustrative example, not a real customer submission.

A brand reviewer checks the English portrait version of an event advertisement.

Asset name and version identifier
Autumn workshop — portrait EN v05
Review decision
Changes requested
What must change or what prevents a review?
The workshop date is still the old date. Update it to match the confirmed event listing.

How to use the response

Correct the date, issue a new version and request another review. The earlier response remains a changes-requested record; it should not be relabeled as approval of v06. Other language and landscape versions still need their own applicable checks.

Before publishing your version

Test all three decisions, including an empty corrections field on the two non-approved paths. Confirm the reviewer roles and use descriptions match your release process.

Questions people ask

Does Approved publish the asset?

No. It records the selected decision. A delivery owner must still check remaining reviews and publish through the appropriate tool.

Does this include an e-signature?

No. The included core fields work on Free. An e-signature question is a separate paid feature, and adding it does not design the rest of your approval process.

What if the reviewer cannot open the file?

They can select Unable to review and explain the access problem. Resolve access and request a new review rather than treating the incomplete review as approval.

Go deeper

Related templates

Ready when you are

Better forms.
Better data.

Start with a conversation, a document or a single page. Unlimited forms and 500 responses per month on Free. No card required.