- 01
Define the tool job and source contract
For Highlight Maker, specify the material entering the workflow, the transformation expected within general video generation, and the deliverable leaving it. Keep generation, editing, publishing, and measurement as separate responsibilities. For this section 1, save a versioned handoff; have the motion designer review motion coherence; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a release review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- Name required input rights and formats — record prompt brief, brand reviewer, camera intent, and dated decision; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- List controls that must be directly observable — record evidence ledger, motion designer, visual hierarchy, and bounded experiment; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- Define a reversible review handoff — record continuity sheet, visual lead, source rights, and bounded experiment; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 02
Compare against a stable acceptance frame
Use the same inputs, review dimensions, and stopping rules for every candidate. Record tradeoffs separately from availability so a promising test is not mistaken for verified product support. For this section 2, save a asset ledger; have the channel owner review revision control; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a release review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 03
Run a bounded tool test
Use one representative asset and a fixed brief. Observe what the interface actually accepts, which controls affect the result, how revisions behave, and what must still be completed elsewhere. Record failures as carefully as successes. For this section 3, save a decision memo; have the product specialist review source rights; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a release review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 04
Select on workflow fit, not implied automation
Compare review effort, controllability, source fidelity, rights handling, and export readiness. A useful planning page does not upload media, invoke a model, or manufacture a result merely because the query contains the word tool. For this section 4, save a acceptance matrix; have the product specialist review claim support; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a release review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 05
Keep the evidence ledger attached to the decision
Partial evidence was supplied, but it does not establish product support or a complete capability, customer, or performance claim. Record the source, verification date, claim scope, unresolved gap, and the decision that the evidence can support. Search demand must never be reused as capability proof. For this section 5, save a camera plan; have the editor review delivery fit; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a release review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 06
Build a specific test brief for highlight maker
Start with a rights-cleared representative source and a written acceptance brief. Define one observable change, protected details, a stopping rule, and the named reviewer. The intended output is a reviewable visual-production brief and evidence-aware handoff. Test one variable per version, preserve the source and settings, and compare results at the actual delivery size instead of choosing from an unrecorded impression. For this topic test, save a frame review; have the producer review reference integrity; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a delivery package until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- Primary query: highlight maker; test record: decision memo, technical reviewer, reference integrity, and source-preserving edit; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- Editorial owner: keyword-expansion:0678; decision record: annotated source board, creative producer, message clarity, and bounded experiment; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- Source scope: a user-provided competitor-gap export dated 2026-08-05 supports topic prioritization only; source review: delivery checklist, producer, input fidelity, and versioned review; keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.
- 07
Separate topic fit from product proof
A dated, user-provided competitor-gap export supports only the decision to cover “highlight maker.” It does not prove audience demand, SEELE capability, third-party behavior, commercial value, or a likely outcome. Verify product-specific statements against current first-party documentation and a recorded representative test. For this source review, save a rights record; have the motion designer review delivery fit; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a rights-cleared draft until the named limitation is resolved. Keep maker evidence separate from highlight assumptions.