Is It Out of Scope? — Web design
Is editing a video after final cut approval out of scope for a web design project?
Usually yes, once the final cut was approved. If a video (a homepage hero video, an explainer piece) was a bundled deliverable within the design project, its revision rounds are typically capped the same way any creative deliverable's are — further edits after approval are a new round.
Some web design projects bundle a short video — a homepage hero, a brief explainer — as part of the launch package. Like any creative deliverable, it goes through review and revision rounds before the client signs off on a final cut. After that approval, a request for further edits — new music, a different pacing, an added scene — is a different kind of ask than a typo fix.
Is it out of scope?
Usually yes. Minor, genuinely small corrections (a caption typo) might be reasonable within the tail end of an approved process, but any substantive edit after final-cut sign-off — re-editing pacing, swapping footage, changing music — is a new revision round outside what was priced.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Revision limit clause→ — Caps revision rounds on the video deliverable — edits requested after the final cut was approved fall outside that allowance, similar to any other creative asset.
Example contract wording
Example contract wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
The video was approved at final cut and we've used the included revision rounds. Further edits at this point would be a new round — I can quote that separately depending on the scope of changes ([$X] for [minor adjustments] up to [$X] for a more substantial re-edit).
How MarginFlow flags it
MarginFlow checks the request against what stage the video deliverable reached (draft review vs. approved final cut) and how many revision rounds have already been used — a request after approval is flagged outside_scope with a suggested charge scaled to how substantial the requested changes sound.