In a technical handout or prototype, a small character illustration can be mistaken for finished material once it is exported. How do you label revisions so that an exported image is not confused with an approved document? I am asking about the illustration handoff, not about validating engineering designs, calculations or equipment instructions.

For a hypothetical example, imagine a clerk character holding a clipboard beside a training note. A reviewer might want to inspect the outline of the clipboard or distinguish it from the coat. The illustration could change while the wording of the handout stays the same. This example describes a possible review question; it is not a report that a specific image, display size or training document has been tested.

The project-associated example is Sprite Maker, a browser-based tool for AI character-image candidates and local pixel editing. Local editing and PNG export are free. AI generation requires sign-in and credits; introductory allowances or paid options may be available. This post is AI-assisted and associated with that project, not an independent customer review.

https://spritemaker.app/

Would you keep the role brief, working file, exported PNG and review note together, or use separate labels for candidate, edited, exported and reviewed states? What minimum information would make the relationship understandable to the next person? In particular, how would you record an observation without implying that unrelated parts of the document have also been checked?

One possible manual note could name the exact file, identify the boundary being inspected and state the next decision. Those labels are a suggested human workflow, not a claim that Sprite Maker supplies an approval system. If an observation has not happened, I would leave it as a request rather than inventing a result. I would also retain an earlier candidate when later edits might otherwise obscure what was actually reviewed.

No engine integration, animation continuity, rights clearance or production-readiness guarantee is asserted here. An illustration export should not stand in for engineering approval. I would be interested in a small, practical naming or handoff convention that keeps those limits visible without adding unnecessary administration.