Why does actionability matter?
- Reduces the time/ effort QC operators spend adding notes that do not need to be addressed.
- Cuts down on the “noise” - allows production partners to focus only on the items that require their attention.
- Improves trust in the QC process (for internal & external stakeholders) by reducing confusion - Asset Management should not need to double check and clarify every result.
What makes a QC report “actionable”?
- Issues flagged all require production to review and indicate a follow-up action (fix or sign off).
- NO generic information about internal processes, tooling issues, or ambiguous “recommendations".
- Issue entry is as accurate as possible (timecodes, error code, descriptions).
- Descriptions/ details are clear and concise.
- All notes can reasonably be identified and comprehended by someone who has not been involved in the QC process.
Most importantly, if it is not an error that directly needs to be addressed by production or the DI/ sound/ fulfillment partner, it should NOT be included in the report.
Verification: When/ How to Make the “Right” Correction
What It Is
- Final check to ensure accuracy and clarity of the QC report - “QC of the QC report”
- Additional set of eyes/ ears as a last effort to identify any major missed issues or blockers
- Generates QC operator and partner scoring while also providing feedback to help improve our QC pool
What It is NOT
- NOT meant for making unnecessary corrections, which do nothing to improve accuracy and clarity of results
- NOT a full re-QC of the asset(s)
- NOT a challenge to pick apart QC results to unfairly ding other QC partners
Examples of Poorly Structured QC Notes
Example 1
- Description does not match a “Mixdown issue”
- Subjective and somewhat repetitive language
- Not enough detail
Correction during Verification
- Update error code.
- Unless entire section is completely different between the PM and M&E, consider splitting into individual entries for the specific discrepancies.
Example 2
- Subjective language
- M&E does not need to adhere to Netflix Loudness spec
- NOT concise or clear
Correction during Verification
- PM is in spec. M&E is also in spec, although it doesn’t need to adhere to the average loudness spec.
- Disagree and leave comment to that effect.
Example 3
- Same flag listed as THREE separate notes
- Asset QC metadata means nothing to the production partner
Correction during Verification
- Disagree and leave comment that Asset QC metadata related to the ident does not need to be surfaced to production.
Example 4
- Notes about issues with playback on a specific platform are not useful
Correction during Verification
- Disagree and leave comment that mastering/ playback platform specific issues do not need to be surfaced to production.
Example 5
- Description does not effectively describe the error.
- M&E and PM matched the proxy audio. Program audio did not match the action in this shot.
- Also, the rest of the scene was edited as a creative montage with multiple instances of audio not matching action. Only this single shot was flagged.
Correction during Verification
- Update description to be accurate.
- Review rest of scene to determine that this was consistent with multiple other shots (and perhaps a creative choice).
- If you are not able to determine with reasonable certainty that this is creatively intended, add additional entries to cover the other shots with the same issue.
If you make a correction or update during verification, you MUST leave details in the description around what you changed and why.