Research artifact · worksheet
Asset review record
A short record for teams that want a generated result to be discussable, reproducible, and reviewable later.
Variation alone is not enough for a production workflow. When someone approves a result, the team should be able to identify the chosen inputs, distinguish its appearance from its structure where useful, and record what was actually checked.
Reusable record
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Asset identity | A project-local label or stable identifier for the reviewed result. |
| Generator revision | The version or commit used to make the result. |
| Seed or saved state | The selected seed, or enough saved state to reconstruct the output. |
| Chosen settings | Only the settings that materially affect the reviewed result. |
| Export reviewed | The actual file or build artifact checked, not only a preview. |
| Review outcome | Approved, needs changes, or rejected—plus concise notes. |
How to use it
- Generate a candidate and choose the result worth discussing.
- Record the identity, revision, inputs, and settings before review.
- Check the actual exported artifact against the project’s requirements.
- Keep the resulting decision with the record so later revisions have context.
Limits
This worksheet does not prove that an asset is visually suitable, performant, licensed correctly, or compatible with every pipeline. It only makes the team’s review process more explicit. The seeded asset lab illustrates one small part of that identity question.