A colleague asks you to review a short instruction sheet. You spot a misspelled name, an unclear sentence, and a step that may contradict the team's process. All three deserve attention, but they do not ask the author to make the same kind of decision. Choosing the right form of feedback makes it easier to see what is ready to change and what still needs an answer.
A suggested edit proposes particular replacement text. A comment opens a question, explains a concern, or gives a reason. They can work together: propose the wording and explain the assumption behind it. The aim is to make the next action clear without turning every observation into either a silent rewrite or a long discussion.
Use an edit when the replacement is the point
A spelling correction, duplicated word, or agreed terminology change is often easiest to review as a visible edit. The author can see exactly what would be added or removed. In Word, Track Changes supports accepting or rejecting those changes. Other tools use labels such as suggesting or reviewing; check the behavior of the actual application.
An edit is less useful when the reviewer is guessing about the underlying facts. Replacing “within five days” with “within two days” may look as tidy as fixing punctuation, but it changes a commitment. If you do not know which interval is correct, ask who owns that fact and leave the uncertainty visible. A polished sentence can still express an unapproved promise.
Before editing extensively, establish the review scope. Is the author asking for factual review, structure, tone, or final proofreading? Reorganizing a document during a narrow factual check can make it harder to find the important correction. The review request should also identify which version people are using.
Use a comment when the answer is still unknown
A useful comment names the problem and the decision it needs. “Unclear” gives the author little direction. “Does this step apply to urgent requests as well as ordinary requests?” identifies the missing boundary. “Please clarify who approves the exception” identifies a responsibility gap.
Here are three fictional examples from an internal instruction sheet:
| Observation | Useful feedback |
|---|---|
| The department name is misspelled | Suggest the corrected spelling |
| The document alternates between two names for the same form | Ask which term is approved, then apply it consistently |
| A step says to send information to “the team” | Ask which role or inbox actually receives it |
Notice that the second example can move from comment to edit after the author answers. The feedback format can change as uncertainty decreases. There is no need to turn the initial question into a permanent conversation once the wording and its basis are agreed.
If the question changes a broader policy or process, the document may not be the right place to decide it. Link to the resulting decision record so future readers can find the reason without searching through old comments.
Resolving a thread does not necessarily change the text
In Word, comment resolution and tracked-change resolution are separate actions. A comment may be marked resolved while the proposed wording is still pending. Equally, an edit can be accepted without answering a related question. Do not use the disappearance of a comment bubble as evidence that the intended correction reached the document.
A short closing reply can connect the two: “Updated the recipient to the shared support inbox in step three.” The reviewer can then inspect that step. If the author declines the suggestion, recording a concise reason may be helpful, especially when the concern could recur. Not every stylistic choice requires a permanent explanation, but consequential ambiguities should not vanish without a decision.
Hiding markup is another distinct action. Word's clean-looking display does not itself accept or reject the stored changes. Before distributing a final copy, inspect the actual review state and follow the team's document-handling process.
Keep feedback attached to the right audience
A comment can contain information that is unsuitable for everyone who will eventually receive the finished document. Review access should reflect the people doing the work. Our guide to sharing a file with an appropriate audience explains why a convenient link is not a reason to widen access.
Avoid putting unnecessary personal details into an example merely to explain an edit. If a sensitive underlying issue needs discussion, use the organization's appropriate channel and leave a neutral reference in the document if needed. This is particularly relevant when an instruction sheet will later become public or go to a wider group.
For a long procedure, comments may reveal that readers need a different document altogether. If experienced staff only need a reminder while new staff need explanation, compare a checklist with a full procedure before compressing everything into one page.
A compact review handoff
End a review with a brief description of its state: which factual questions remain, which edits are proposed, and whether the document has been checked after the changes. “Reviewed the collection section; two ownership questions remain” is more informative than “Looks good” beside several unresolved comments.
The author then knows whether the next job is answering a question, accepting wording, obtaining another person's decision, or preparing the final version. Good feedback makes that next job easier to identify. It does not require every reviewer to use the same tool for every kind of concern.
Sources
- Microsoft: Track changes in Word
Tracked changes record additions and deletions for acceptance or rejection; hiding markup does not remove pending changes.
- Microsoft: Give and receive feedback in Word
Comment threads and tracked changes have separate resolution actions; a resolved comment remains until deleted.