Solutions
Review Workflows
Review Workflows are the control/review layer of an automated reporting system. They help teams catch, correct, approve, and hand off recurring reporting outputs before dashboards, reports, exports, or packages are trusted, shared, or distributed.
They do not remove human judgment. They make recurring review status, exceptions, ownership, and handoffs visible when the reporting output matters.
Control layer
The control layer around the other reporting layers.
Review Workflows connect checks, corrections, approvals, ownership, and handoffs to prepared data, dashboard views, and generated outputs.
When review needs structure
Review becomes part of the system when it repeats and affects release.
The question is not whether people should review. It is whether recurring checks, exceptions, approvals, and handoffs need clearer status than the current habit provides.
Recurring review cycle
The same reporting checks happen every month, quarter, or reporting period.
Exceptions and corrections
Missing inputs, changed files, unusual totals, manual adjustments, or metric issues need owners.
Multiple reviewers
Finance, operations, analysts, executives, owners, clients, or external stakeholders have different review responsibilities.
Release readiness
Dashboards, exports, or generated packages should only move forward when status is clear.
Informal or workflow
Keep it informal, or turn it into a workflow.
Email, Slack, comments, checklists, and task tools are often enough. A workflow makes sense when the review state needs to travel with the recurring reporting output.
Keep it informal when...
- One person can reliably review a simple internal report.
- Existing comments, email, Slack, or a checklist gives enough context.
- The reporting output is low-risk or internal.
- The review is ad hoc and changes every time.
Turn it into a workflow when...
- Review repeats each reporting cycle.
- Status or ownership is unclear.
- Multiple reviewers or approval paths are involved.
- External or high-stakes outputs depend on review.
- Exceptions need consistent handling before output.
Existing review tools
Build around the review habits already in place.
Dashboards, reports, spreadsheets, email, Slack/Teams, Power BI comments and subscriptions, Tableau data quality warnings, Looker alerts, task tools, and existing approval habits may already handle simple review. Valiance Labs fits when the reporting context needs clearer structure.
Keep existing comments and tasks
Use spreadsheet notes, Power BI comments, Tableau or Looker comments, email, Slack/Teams, or task tools when they carry enough context.
Add reporting-specific status
Add states such as draft, needs correction, ready for review, approved, sent, or archived when the current tool does not understand the reporting context.
Connect status to outputs
Tie review status to prepared data, dashboards, generated reports, exports, or packages so release readiness is visible.
Use focused screens sparingly
Build custom review screens only where the recurring workflow needs specific roles, exception detail, or handoff rules.
What it can include
Status, exceptions, approvals, and handoffs around the reporting cycle.
Review Workflows should stay close to the recurring checks people actually make, not become a broad internal tool by default.
Exception review
Focused review of missing inputs, unusual totals, changed files, or source issue flags.
Correction notes
Notes that explain what changed, who corrected it, and what still needs follow-up.
Approval states
Draft, needs correction, ready for review, approved, sent, or archived states for reporting outputs.
Report status
Status by entity, client, owner, department, report, or reporting cycle.
Review-before-send
Checks and signoff before exports, packages, dashboards, or reports are shared.
Manual adjustment notes
A place to explain manual changes that still require business judgment.
Role-specific access
Reviewer, owner, operator, analyst, or stakeholder views when access scope matters.
Source issue flags
Flags for late files, missing fields, stale refreshes, or changed formats.
Handoff steps
Clear ownership when work moves between analysts, finance, operations, owners, or clients.
Distribution readiness
A visible answer to whether an output is ready to generate, send, export, or archive.
Release record
Who approved what, when, and with which reporting context.
Review history
Commentary and decisions attached to the reporting cycle, not scattered across separate threads.
Connected reporting layers
Review Workflows sit around the reporting system.
Prepared data may create exceptions, dashboards may show review status, and report generation may use approval status before outputs are released.
What stays human
Keep human judgment where it matters.
Review Workflows should make checks, exceptions, status, and handoffs easier to see and manage. They should not hide the decisions that still need business context.
Unusual variances
Unexpected movement still needs someone who understands the business context.
Commentary and adjustments
Narrative notes and manual changes should remain visible with ownership and reasoning.
Metric definition changes
Changes to what a number means should be reviewed before they flow into dashboards or reports.
Final signoff
External or high-stakes reporting may need a clear human approval before distribution.
Start a project
Start with the reporting step where status or approval gets unclear.
Valiance Labs can help determine whether the review can stay in the current tool, needs clearer status around an existing dashboard or report, or should become part of a repeatable reporting workflow.