Creating a review session

A review session brings the right artifacts and the right people together to evaluate work before it moves forward. You set one up through a guided wizard that captures everything the review needs to run.

Choosing the type

Reviews come in two forms. A peer review gathers feedback and discussion to improve the work, while an approval review is a formal gate where designated people sign off. Choosing the type sets the tone and the rules — a peer review is about input; an approval review is about a decision.

Selecting the items

A review is scoped to a defined set of items — the requirements, tests, risks, or other records under evaluation. Selecting them up front means everyone reviews the same agreed set, and the session’s status reflects exactly that scope rather than a moving target.

Inviting participants

You add reviewers from your organization, from the project team, or by inviting people by email. Participants can hold roles within the session — a moderator to run it, alongside the reviewers — so responsibilities are clear. You can include instructions or context to tell reviewers what to focus on.

Approvals, voting, and escalation

An approval review is configured to your process. You can set the number of required approvals, how voting works (including the labels and votes available to each participant), and escalation — who a review escalates to, and after how many days — so a stalled review doesn’t simply sit. Where your compliance policy mandates certain settings, those are enforced and locked, so a session can’t be configured in a way that violates your controls.

Starting the review

With the type, items, participants, and rules in place, the session starts and reviewers are notified. From here the work moves to participating — where reviewers comment, vote, and decide — and you track it through workload & status.