This page explains a practical review workflow used by teams when several documents must feel like one file before a client ever sees it.
Core idea: clients review outcomes, not file fragments. Teams first create one controlled PDF, then collect feedback on that single reference file.
Most teams already have finished pieces: a proposal, visual samples, legal terms, and supporting data. The problem is not creation, but order and context during review.
Multiple attachments lead to mixed feedback. One comment refers to page numbers that do not match another file. Review time increases, not because of quality, but confusion.
Teams decide the reading flow first. Executive summary always comes before detail. Supporting documents are placed after the main narrative, never between arguments.
Once order is locked, teams combine documents into one PDF so every reviewer speaks about the same pages and sections.
Real-world constraint: many reviewers open PDFs on mobile devices. Files above 25–30 MB often load slowly on cellular networks, so teams compress images before combining files.
All comments refer to one file version. Teams usually lock the file name with a version number to avoid parallel feedback on outdated drafts.
Edits happen on source files, not the merged copy. After changes, the PDF is rebuilt to maintain a clean approval history.
Experienced teams never annotate during the first client review. They wait for full feedback, then apply all changes at once. This reduces approval cycles and avoids partial revisions.
Should drafts be watermarked?
Only during early internal reviews. Client-ready drafts should look final to avoid bias.
Who owns the final file?
One person controls distribution to prevent conflicting versions.
When documents read as one story, approvals move faster and feedback stays focused.
Create a single review-ready PDF