A human should review an AI training video against its approved sources before release. Check facts and terminology, policy wording, procedural steps, generated visuals, narration, captions and delivery behaviour. Assign each check to a named owner and record unresolved issues. Approve the final exported module and its language versions, not only the script that was used to generate them.
Assign the checks before production begins
Separate subject accuracy from production quality. An editor can notice a spelling error or a broken transition; a policy owner or technical expert is better placed to identify an incorrect requirement or missing step. Agree on these responsibilities in the brief so a polished rough cut does not arrive without anyone available to approve its substance.
The following checklist is a production-planning tool. It does not certify legal compliance, safety competence or the absence of every error.
| Checkpoint | What to verify | Suggested owner | Evidence to record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facts and source versions | Names, dates, figures, terminology and product claims match current approved material | Subject-matter expert | Source reference and resolved comments |
| Policy and reporting | Wording, contacts and escalation routes match the organisation's policy | Policy, HR or legal owner | Approved script and final-cut confirmation |
| Procedure and visuals | The sequence and equipment representation accurately support the task | Process owner or EHS reviewer | Scene-level checks and required corrections |
| Narration and language | Speech matches the approved meaning; terminology and pronunciation are correct | Subject expert and language reviewer | Approved audio and language version |
| Accessibility | Captions, essential visual information, readable text and player access meet the agreed requirements | Accessibility or learning specialist | Completed checks and any limitations |
| Delivery and versioning | The correct module launches, resumes and reports as configured | LMS administrator and training owner | Test result, release version and approval record |
Name the final release owner as well. They should confirm that the required reviewers have closed their issues; they should not be expected to substitute for every specialist.
Review the script against sources, then review the actual video
Give reviewers the approved source documents and a versioned script. Ask them to identify the passage supporting each important policy statement, numerical claim or process instruction. Where sources conflict, resolve the conflict with the responsible owner before production treats either version as final.
Review the produced video again. Narration can differ from the script, captions can omit a word, an on-screen figure can be wrong, and a generated scene can imply an action the script never intended. An approved script is therefore an input to final review, not a substitute for it.
For compliance and POSH content, use the organisation's current policy and approved reporting information. For product and systems training, compare screen recordings and feature claims with the release or test environment named in the brief.
Give generated visuals a subject-matter review
Check what each image or scene communicates, including actions, labels, objects and their relationship to the narration. Visual plausibility is not evidence of technical accuracy. A realistic-looking control panel or machine can still show a configuration that does not exist.
For exact equipment or safety procedures, the process owner should decide what needs genuine footage, a validated illustration or another production method. Do not use a generated demonstration as the authority for the procedure. Our SOP video planning guide explains how to map scenes to an approved source.
Here is a hypothetical review example: a software video says “Save the request,” but the captured screen shows “Submit for approval.” The reviewer should confirm the intended workflow and then align the narration, screen and captions. Fixing the caption alone would leave the underlying inconsistency unresolved.
Check captions and accessibility separately
Compare captions with the final audio, including names, acronyms, numbers and meaningful non-speech sounds. Check timing, speaker identification where needed and whether captions obscure important controls or labels. W3C's caption guidance explains that captions communicate relevant speech and non-speech audio information; they are more than an unreviewed speech transcript.
Also ask how essential visual information is communicated to someone who cannot see it. Depending on the content and agreed conformance target, this may require integrated description, audio description or other alternatives. Check the player and surrounding delivery experience using W3C's media planning guidance. A caption file alone does not establish WCAG AA conformance for the whole experience.
Test the delivery package in the real learning environment
Ask the LMS administrator to test the actual release package in the intended platform. Check launch, playback, captions, navigation, resume behaviour and the completion or assessment records that the brief requires.
Document the test conditions and configuration. Different packaging standards and LMS implementations support different behaviours; a format name is not proof that every required record will be captured. Confirm the reports produced by a test learner before assigning the module to employees.
If the video is available in several languages, review the released version of each one. A correct master script does not guarantee correct translation, pronunciation, captions or on-screen text in every derivative.
Keep a review record that people can use
A useful issue log includes the module version, timestamp or scene, problem, required correction, owner and resolution. Use specific instructions such as “Replace the outdated help address at 01:18 and in the transcript” rather than “Check accuracy.”
- Record the sources and versions used for approval.
- Track changes across narration, visuals, captions, transcripts and packages.
- Recheck corrected scenes in context, including transitions and references.
- Obtain the required approvals for the final export, not an earlier review link.
- Record where the released files are available and how older versions will be replaced.
Human review reduces the risk of releasing known errors; it does not guarantee that a learner can perform the task. Where practical skill matters, the training owner must also plan the appropriate practice and assessment.
Make review part of the next update
Reopen review when a policy, process, product release or source claim changes. Use the source register to identify affected scenes and language versions. An unchanged film can still become inaccurate as the underlying organisation or product changes.
For a new Probbit module, bring the approved source material, review owners and delivery requirements to the scoping conversation. For an existing library, start with training library refresh and identify which modules have the greatest mismatch with current sources.