The buyer decides whether to review an order and what rating to give. A delivery process should focus on usable files and the agreed scope. This checklist walks through a fictional product-copy delivery and distinguishes a correction from a new request.
Check against the agreement, not your memory
Put the approved brief beside the final file. Count the deliverables and match the identifiers. For three product descriptions, there should be three SKU-labelled sections, the agreed spelling style and no unsupported specification. Check any changes agreed after the original brief.
Open the saved attachment itself. Do not rely only on the editor window where you wrote it. Check the filename, format, version, missing characters and draft comments. If the agreed output is PDF, inspect that export; changing a filename extension is not conversion.
A quality-control record
| Check | Evidence for the fictional order |
|---|---|
| Complete | PL-A5, PL-DOTP and PL-PLAN present |
| Accurate | Size, page layout and binding match the approved table |
| Within scope | Three titles and descriptions; no unagreed uploading |
| Usable | Editable file opens and text is selectable |
| Clear limitations | Paper weight not supplied; no paper-weight claim |
| Reviewable | One named version and a specific feedback request |
Download the delivery checklist and replace the sample checks with the requirements for your work. For a spreadsheet, verify row counts, formulas and unresolved issues; for a video, inspect the actual export with sound.
Write a useful handoff note
Hello, attached is notebook-copy-v1.md with the three agreed titles and descriptions, labelled by SKU. I checked the supplied size, page count, cover and binding. Paper weight was not supplied, so it is not claimed. Please send one consolidated list of changes within our agreed brief. Additional products or store uploading would need a separate scope.
The note tells the buyer what to open and how to review it. It does not claim the work will increase sales or ask for a particular rating. Use the platform's delivery mechanism and current instructions for the actual order.
If the buyer is unhappy
First identify the type of problem. A missed approved requirement belongs in a correction. A request for a different audience or five extra products may change the scope. A corrupted file needs a usable replacement promptly. Ask a focused question when feedback is vague: “Which SKU and sentence need the change, and what approved fact should replace it?”
Keep a record of the decision in the permitted channel. Do not respond defensively or silently expand the work beyond what you can deliver. If the platform has an order-resolution process relevant to the issue, use its official guidance.
Keep feedback independent
Read Fiverr's reviews guidance. Do not buy, exchange or pressure for reviews, or make a correction or refund conditional on a favourable rating. An honest review remains the buyer's choice.
After the order, record what caused revisions and improve the next requirements list. That record can change your process even when the rating contains little detail. Do not turn one good review into a promise about future orders or treat one bad review as proof of a hidden ranking cause.
Official references
Source pages checked on 23 October 2026. These references support platform facts; the practice scenarios and worksheets are our educational examples. Confirm account-specific conditions with the provider.
Practice work and illustrative amounts are labelled in the article. See how we prepare and correct guides and how the resource checks work. Report a specific error or broken step.