Build a portrait approval sheet for a team
A team photo set can look beautifully consistent and still include a portrait its subject would reject. Let AI organise the files and the open questions; the approvals stay with people.
What you'll make
an editable review sheet with one record per person, three separate status fields and the next question for every record that isn’t finished.
What you'll need
a work chat assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini) your organisation lets you use for staff photos, each person’s original and edited file names or links, the intended use and any approvals you already hold in writing. About 20 minutes for a small team.
Example result.
- Record A · files: original and edit linked · appearance: pending · treatment: matches the brief · permission: missing
- Record B · files: original and edit linked · appearance: rejected, neckline changed · treatment: background acceptable · permission: missing
- Record C · files: original only · appearance: not reviewed · treatment: no edit yet · permission: missing
- Next: B needs a neckline repair from the original; A needs the person’s appearance approval and permission for the website; C needs an edit before anyone reviews it.
1. Collect one record per person
For each person, note a record ID, the original file, the edited file, the changes that were requested and where the photo will be used. Keep everything else out: no notes about the person, their role or anything unrelated to the photo.
Don’t upload a folder of portraits and ask which people “look professional”. That invites a judgement about people, which is not the job. The useful AI job is lining up comparable evidence and showing what still needs a human answer.
Why this works: a record per person, with the same fields, makes a gap visible. A folder of images hides which ones nobody has reviewed.
What you should see: a short list with the same five fields for every person, and blanks where you have no information yet.
2. Ask AI to build the sheet
Paste the records into a new chat and ask for the sheet.
Build an editable portrait review sheet from these records.
For each record ID include: original and edited file links, requested changes, visible review notes, intended use,
and three separate status fields: appearance approval, treatment review, permission for this use.
Copy the wording of any approval exactly as I gave it. Where I gave no evidence, write Pending or Missing.
Do not infer approval, consent, identity, health, job suitability or readiness from an image.
End with one specific next question or repair for each incomplete record.Why this works: three fields stop one “yes” from standing in for the other two. A brand reviewer can love the backdrop while the person in the photo rejects their own face.
What you should see: every record with three statuses, most of them Pending or Missing on a first pass, and a short next-step list.
3. Tie each approval to one version
When a person approves their portrait, record which edited file they approved and for which use. If the edit changes later, that approval doesn’t carry over to the new file. Keep the real record (an email, a form response) and link to it, rather than asking AI to write a tidy approval date. This sheet records decisions; it isn’t legal advice on consent.
Why this works: “approved” without a file name means nobody can tell which version was approved, and the version that ends up on the website is often not the one that was shown.
What you should see: each approval next to a file name, a use and a link to the record.
Check the result
- Every record ID, file link and version matches what you gave the AI. A duplicated link can make the sheet look complete while showing the wrong person.
- No “Missing” has turned into an approval.
- A rejection still reads as a rejection, not “minor feedback”.
- The overall summary claims nothing the three status fields don’t support.
The usual failure: the summary at the end is more confident than the rows. Every row says permission is “Missing”, and the summary says “The set is consistent and ready to publish.” Spot it by reading the summary against the permission column first.
Your summary says [what the summary claims], but record [ID] shows [the status in the sheet].
Correct the summary so it matches the rows. Keep appearance, treatment and permission separate,
don't infer missing decisions, and list what still needs a person or a record before this use can go ahead.[what the summary claims] is the over-confident line; [ID] and [the status in the sheet] are the row that contradicts it.
Worked example: a tidy packet that kept its unknowns
Fictional example. A team of three is refreshing website headshots. The records are the three in the example result above.
First summary (wrong): “The set is consistent and ready to publish.”
Repair: the repair prompt, with record B’s “Rejected: neckline changed” and the empty permission column named.
Repaired summary: “Not ready to publish. B needs a neckline correction made from B’s original, then a fresh appearance review. A needs the person’s appearance approval and permission for the website. C needs an edit before treatment review. No record has permission for the intended use.”
- The first summary was about the look of the set. The sheet is about three decisions per person, and none was complete.
- B’s repair goes back to B’s original photo, not the rejected edit, so the change doesn’t compound.
- “No record has permission” is the most useful line in the repaired summary: it tells the organiser what to ask for first.
Task kit for this job: Download (ZIP) · Reusable instructions
Go deeper
Name versions so approvals can't drift
Give every edited file a version in its name, such as B-edit-v2, and use that name in the approval field. When the edit changes, the new file gets a new version and starts at Pending. That one habit stops last week’s approval travelling to this week’s file.
Share one style brief, not one face
Reuse the light, background and export rules across the set so the photos match. Each person still supplies their own current original and their own limits (“keep my glasses”, “no smoothing”). Never use one generated portrait as the reference for everyone’s face or pose.
Send each person only their own record
People should review their own portrait, not the whole team’s. Ask the AI to turn the sheet into one short message per person with only their files, the intended use and the question you need answered.
From this sheet, write one short message per record ID for that person only.
Include their original and edited file names, the intended use and the one question from their row.
Don't mention anyone else's record or status.