Find the gaps before you submit your book.

A readiness review checks whether the manuscript, design files and book information are aligned for the selected publication route. It is useful when several contributors have worked on a book and the author needs a coherent handover.

Before discussing a schedule or a quote, describe the intended reader, what already exists and what you want to be different at the end. That short explanation helps separate the central task from work that may be useful later. A relevant excerpt, outline or file can make the conversation more concrete than a broad description alone.

Check that the same approved text appears in each edition. Compare title, subtitle, author name, description and cover wording. Identify missing material such as acknowledgments, image captions or the contents before beginning a new upload.

Record those decisions in a brief that can be revisited. Include examples of the direction you prefer and explain why they are relevant. If several people will review the project, agree who consolidates their comments and who makes the final decision. Conflicting instructions are easier to resolve before a full draft or design is produced.

• The working title, subject and intended audience.
• The current version of the material and its approximate size.
• The result you want this stage to produce.
• Relevant references, examples and any established style preferences.
• A deadline, if one exists, and the reason behind it.
• The person responsible for approvals and consolidated feedback.

Explain any constraints early. These may include material that must remain unchanged, documents still being gathered, another contributor’s schedule or a planned release window. A proposal is more useful when it reflects those dependencies instead of assuming that every input is ready on day one.

The exact handover should be listed in the written scope. For this area, useful items to discuss include:

• A file and metadata inventory.
• A gap and issue report.
• A prioritized correction list.
• A submission-readiness recommendation.

Confirm the file format, number of versions and whether editable working files are included. Ask what supporting notes accompany the main deliverable and how unresolved questions are recorded. An initial sample, an in-progress draft and a final approved file are different milestones; each should have a clear purpose.

1. Confirm the publication route. Review the material and identify what is ready, what is missing and which decisions affect the next stage. Confirm the intended audience and the specific result before committing to a detailed approach.

2. Prepare files and information. Put the proposed work into a clear sequence. Identify the first approval point, the material needed from the author and the deliverables for that stage. Resolve questions that could otherwise affect the whole project.

3. Preview and approve. Carry out the agreed work in a manageable version. Share questions while they are still useful, and keep comments attached to the relevant passage, page or asset. Use the brief to judge changes consistently.

4. Record the handover. Consolidate the agreed decisions and check the final version against the scope. Record any remaining tasks, distinguish approved files from earlier drafts and explain what the next contributor or platform will need.

Resolve issues in dependency order. Text changes may affect pagination, which can affect a print cover. Review the revised files rather than assuming that a correction made in one format has appeared in every edition.

Use one consolidated response for each agreed review round. Quote the passage, identify the page or name the file so the issue can be located. Explain the reason for a requested change where it affects the direction. Keep corrections, questions and new requests distinct; this makes it easier to understand which changes fit the original brief.

The size of the material is only one factor. Complexity, readiness, the number of contributors and the amount of new work can all affect the scope. A short but technically complicated project may need more preparation than a longer straightforward one.

A schedule should also account for your review time. If essential material arrives late, or if the direction changes after approval, subsequent milestones may need adjustment. Ask how those changes will be documented before work begins. The project proposal should identify service fees and separately charged expenses rather than leaving them implicit.

A readiness review does not guarantee platform acceptance. Corrections, redesign, proofreading and submission support should be separately identified when they fall outside the initial review.

Before commissioning, ask what happens if further work becomes necessary. A useful change process describes the additional task, its effect on cost and timing, and the approval needed to proceed. This protects the purpose of the current stage while allowing the project to develop when there is a good reason.

You do not need a polished presentation to explain your project. A working title, a paragraph about the book, the current word count if known and an honest description of the sticking point are enough to begin. If you already have a proposal from another provider, compare the defined tasks rather than assuming similar labels mean identical work.

Bring your priorities in order. Tell us what must be resolved now, what can wait and which decisions you want help making. The aim of the first conversation is a relevant next step and a clear understanding of the work—not a promise about outcomes no provider can control.