Reviewers, clients and platforms

Reviewed

Know what you are accepting.

A finished film or release shows the result. Its Creation Record gives you context about the people, recorded process and review behind the selected version. Start with the actual record and read each claim for what it establishes.

Review scope: A public link exposes only approved information. A private review requires access to the relevant project or asset. A reviewer title, account plan or professional qualification does not grant access by itself.

Start with the work

Match the record to the version in front of you.

Open the current record link provided with the submission. Check the title, selected version, contributor context and publication status. If the cut or master changed, ask for the record corresponding to that delivery.

Commissioning client

Check the deliverable against the agreed brief and permitted assistance. Keep that commercial decision separate from the programme’s review status.

Independent verifier

Confirm your review scope and the evidence available to you. Request missing context through the permitted review route rather than seeking private source files.

Broadcaster or platform

Keep the record identifier with the submission and use its current returned status. Do not turn a successful lookup into an approval badge.

Read the evidence

Each part of the record answers a different question.

Identity and access

Identity verification establishes the participating account’s eligibility. It does not prove that every creative decision was made by that person.

Contribution and credit

Declarations describe who contributed and in what role. Confirmed declarations are distinct from recorded activity and from ownership of copyright.

Activity and coverage

Recorded intervals describe the observed process. Gaps, unavailable observations and unsupported tools limit that record. More clicks or time do not establish a human creation percentage.

Integrity and assessment

Signatures protect the source and history of accepted records. Findings and review decisions explain the assessment under the programme rules.

Warnings and context

A flag starts a review. It is not the decision.

The verification engine is designed to identify prohibited assistance and software acting in a contributor’s place. Review the relevant evidence and the contributor’s explanation together. Ordinary playback, keyframes, sequencing and rendering follow the disclosed tool policy.

Keep these distinctions visible

  • An AI output alone cannot confirm an incident or impose a penalty
  • Missing coverage and suspicion alone are not incidents
  • The first confirmed incident holds the affected recording or version
  • The third distinct confirmed incident restricts project directory publication
  • One continuous episode is not several incidents because it has many events
  • A correction preserves the original evidence and changes the resulting assessment

Your assessment

Make your decision traceable.

Identify the version, information reviewed, unresolved questions and the reason for your decision. Use only the access and review actions granted to you. A client accepting a delivery is separate from DigiBridge confirming an incident or approving publication.

The programme assesses human creation under its rules. Rights clearance, performer consent, editorial accuracy and legal obligations still need their own checks. For disputed findings, follow the human creation standard and request the appropriate review.

For developers

Display what the API actually returns.

The current public v1 API returns approved preview records. Its final verification, ledger anchoring and human certification flags remain false. It does not provide a live AI verdict, private review queue or film recording endpoint.

DigiBridge help

FAQs, support and sales

What can we help with?

Find a quick answer or leave a message for our team. Replies appear here.