Ask a creator what they dread and it is rarely the shoot. It is round seven — the one where the feedback contradicts round four, nobody has said no, and the invoice is still not payable.
Nine different kinds of work move through this platform, from a campaign deliverable to a vendor subcontract. All nine cap at three revision rounds, and every one of them shows the count. Not as a punishment for buyers, but because an ending is what makes the loop safe to enter.
What the cap actually buys
- Feedback gets specific. A finite number of rounds changes how notes are written. Buyers batch and prioritise instead of drip-feeding.
- Scope stays honest. A brief that needs five rounds was under-specified. The cap surfaces that on the first project rather than the fifth.
- There is a real exit. Past the cap the options are approve or dispute. Nothing sits in a permanent almost-there, and nobody is stuck waiting on a decision that never comes.
A link or a file — not notes
A submission has to carry something a reviewer can actually look at: a URL, a file, or both. Notes alone are not a submission, and every downstream gate checks the delivered proof rather than what the request claimed. Adding files in a later round does not wipe out the link you posted in the first one.
One timeline, not three
Every round — what was submitted, what was asked for, who approved — renders on one revision timeline, built from the same history on every screen that shows it. The round number is derived from the sequence rather than stored, so it cannot disagree with the events beneath it.
A review loop without a defined end is not flexible. It is unpriced.