EDITING · 5 MIN READ
What to do when a property editor sends the wrong or incomplete files
A rushed message saying “files are wrong” may create another incomplete submission. Recovery works best when the team separates the immediate correction from the process improvement.
QUICK ANSWER
Pause delivery, compare the submission with the job’s expected output list, and record each missing, incorrect or superseded item against the submitted version. Assign the correction with a clear due time and reviewer, then recheck the complete package. After recovery, fix the source count, brief or acceptance rule that failed.
Contain the client-facing risk first
Stop the unapproved package from reaching the client. Keep the current submission intact and identify the correct property job, ordered service and expected outputs. If a promised delivery will change, name the person who will update the client and the time for that decision.
Do not overwrite the submitted version while the team is still diagnosing the gap.
Describe the correction precisely
List the affected files or expected items, what is wrong or missing, and the acceptance condition for the replacement. Distinguish a missing source from an editor omission: the person able to resolve the problem may be the photographer or intake owner rather than the editor.
- Wrong property or source set: verify job identity and access.
- Missing output: compare submission with the service checklist.
- Wrong version: restore the current approved instruction.
- Quality correction: cite the file, issue and expected result.
Illustrative recovery flow
In a fictional 28-image photo order, QC receives 27 exports and one file belongs to an older property. The reviewer rejects the submission, identifies both exact gaps and keeps the version out of delivery. The editor replaces the incorrect file and supplies the missing export in a new version; the reviewer checks all 28 items again before approval.
The numbers are illustrative, not customer data.
Prevent the same failure at intake
Trace whether the job ID, source grouping, expected count, brief or submission location was unclear. Add the smallest useful control: a verified source manifest, a required output list, a stable folder rule or an acknowledgement step. Avoid adding a generic checklist item that no one owns.
- Who verifies the source set?
- Who confirms the expected outputs?
- Who can approve the corrected version?
- Where is the delivery-ready package protected?