Stay in control. Give your team room to work.
Approve the work without rebuilding the whole story
“Can you approve this?” should arrive with a clear result and a useful explanation. In IPI, the employee submits the work, IPI checks it against what was agreed, and you or your chosen reviewer makes the completion decision. You spend your attention on the call, with less chasing before you can make it.
Five finished pages. One enquiry form going nowhere.
Imagine a studio agrees to deliver a five-page website with working enquiry forms. Jules sends a preview. It looks ready. The pages are polished and the buttons all appear in the right places.
But one form sends enquiries to an old address. The visible design is complete; the promised handoff is not.
A useful approval starts with the promise. Did the test show that an enquiry reached the agreed destination? That question makes the missing work obvious. Asking Jules to “improve the quality” would not.
Make the agreement clear before review
The employee proposes what they will deliver in IPI. The proposal can include the result, the deadline and what will show it works. Depending on how you run the company, IPI can accept that proposal or return it for improvement, or the owner can make that initial decision.
For Jules, “five pages with enquiry forms that reach the support inbox” is more useful than “finish the website.” It gives the employee a clear target and IPI something specific to check. Use the agreement template.
IPI prepares the work decision
After Jules submits the result, IPI checks the material against the agreed job and the information around it. You can read the assessment with the submission instead of starting with a screenshot and trying to remember what was promised.
You or the reviewer you choose decides whether the work is complete. If the form destination is missing or wrong, the correction can name that exact gap. Jules sends the next attempt on the same job, so the explanation does not disappear into another message thread.
That is the management work IPI is designed to remove: gathering the pieces, comparing them from scratch and repeatedly explaining the same correction.
A correction and a new request are different work
Fixing the form destination completes the original promise. Adding a sixth page changes it. Keeping those separate makes the review clearer for both sides.
Asana’s approval guidance makes approval, requested changes and rejection explicit. The useful habit is to record the reason as well as the status. In IPI, the assessment and work history give your decision that context.
Write the next step so the employee can act: which condition is missing, which result would answer it and when the correction is needed. Keep required specialist checks with the people qualified to perform them.
Follow the job, then keep what it taught
Open the work later and you should be able to see what was proposed, what came back, why it needed another attempt and what was finally decided. You can stay close to the work without conducting each conversation yourself.
The form mistake can also help the next person: a visual check did not establish where enquiries arrived. A real submission test did. Inherited Will can carry that lesson to a relevant later employee once they are set up to receive it.
Work approval and payment remain separate. IPI’s payout record supports a manual external payment process; recording or approving it does not itself transfer money.
Bring the next “Can you check this?” to IPI
Watch how IPI works, then try a recurring submission in the product. Judge how much less you need to ask before making the call.