Feedback arrives piecemeal with no structure — a Slack reaction here, a comment in a doc there, a verbal note in a corridor. The designer doesn't know what to prioritize. The loudest voice wins by default.
The coordinator can't tell what was addressed and what was ignored. Next review, the same points come back. Nobody kept the record.
Fields prompt for first impressions, clarity, audience, purpose, and consistency.
The designer records learnings and next steps before moving to approval.
The coordinator sees feedback and the designer's response before signing off.
Feedback is structured against clear criteria so nothing is vague. The designer gets consolidated input with space to reflect before acting. The coordinator has a full record of what was said and how it was addressed before they sign off.
Designer — Defines the work to be reviewed and prepares the feedback questions.
Feedback Giver — Submits feedback by answering guided questions tailored to the project.
Designer — Reviews all responses and records learnings and next steps.
Coordinator — Reviews the cycle, validates conclusions, and adds any necessary context.
Designer — Updates the final conclusions if needed, then shares the completed learnings with everyone who contributed.
Examines the work and gives structured feedback
Reflects on feedback, records learnings, wraps up
Reviews the cycle and approves or requests iteration
The Feedback Process template turns critique into something you can find again. Structured questions in, documented insights out, shared with everyone who contributed. The review stops being a thread you lose and starts being a record you keep — including what was addressed and what wasn't.
For people who run recurring reviews and need structured input with a sign-off:
Open this map when a review is about to start and critique usually lands in scattered threads.
