Participating in a review

Once a session starts, the work happens in participation: reviewers examine the items, raise issues, discuss them, and reach a decision. Everything they do is captured as part of the review record.

Reviewing the items

Each participant works through the items in the session’s scope. You see exactly what’s under review — including, where relevant, the specific revision and what changed — so feedback is anchored to a precise version of the work rather than a moving draft.

Comments and discussion

The heart of a review is its comments. Reviewers raise points against the items, others respond, and the discussion is recorded against the work itself. Comments can be voted on, so agreement and disagreement are visible and the points that matter most rise to the top rather than getting lost in a thread.

Requesting changes

When a reviewer finds something that must be addressed, they can request changes — a clear signal that the work isn’t ready as-is, with the reason attached. This turns a vague “looks off” into an actionable item the author can resolve, and the review tracks whether it has been.

Decisions and approvals

In an approval review, participants record their decision — approving the work or rejecting it — according to the session’s voting and required-approval rules. Because an approval is a formal act, it’s attributable and, where your process requires, backed by an electronic signature. The mechanics of signing are covered in Approvals & e-signatures.

Resolving and converging

As changes are made and comments addressed, points get resolved and the session converges toward a conclusion. A review is finished not when time runs out but when its items have been evaluated and the required decisions recorded — the subject of Workload & status.