Describe what the asset represents
A general family image, a color-specific photograph, and a package diagram serve different purposes. The catalog should distinguish them so that an export does not accidentally use a convenient but misleading file. A meaningful relationship is more reliable than a filename alone.
Decide which attributes are needed to choose an image for a particular output. The selection might depend on variation, view, language, or intended use, and those criteria should be documented.
Keep technical presence separate from approval
A link can resolve successfully while pointing to an outdated or unapproved image. A file may also exist but be inaccessible to the person or system preparing an output. These conditions should not all appear as a single “Image available” result.
The review state should indicate what was checked and who is responsible for approval. A software check does not establish copyright ownership, usage permission, or the factual accuracy of the image.
Plan for replacements and broken references
A replacement image may need to become current without making earlier exports impossible to understand. An asset identifier and a deliberate version relationship can help preserve that context. Decide how a retired reference is handled before deleting or renaming files.
Broken references need a review route. The team should know whether to restore access, select another approved asset, or hold the affected item from the destination output. A fallback should be explicit rather than hidden.
Inspect the output selection
Test a family with several color variations, an item with no approved image, and a replaced asset. Confirm that the export chooses the intended reference and explains any hold. Review the generated file as well as the catalog view.
A delivery may include relationship rules, a sample asset index, and checks for unresolved links. Live image processing, a digital asset platform, or ongoing rights administration are additional requirements to discuss explicitly.