Editing
Proofread on paper without losing your corrections
Paper can change how you read a draft; a controlled transfer process keeps its corrections from becoming a second version.
Ask what would be wrong if it stayed
A proof can make familiar wording suddenly look unsatisfactory. Before changing it, ask what would be wrong if it remained. A misspelled name, omitted word, misleading instruction or broken reference has a specific defect. Replacing “walked” with “moved” may be a preference, unless the surrounding action gives the distinction a clear purpose.
This question does not forbid substantive corrections. An unsupported claim or a sentence that reverses the intended meaning should not survive merely because layout has begun. Describe the problem accurately and alert the person responsible for production. The decision then concerns a known error and its repair, rather than an unexplained late rewrite.
Separate three kinds of note: definite corrections, questions requiring a decision, and optional improvements. The categories help the production team understand what must be resolved before approval. They also prevent a query from being implemented as though its proposed wording had already been agreed.
Consider the reach of a change
A short addition can move a line, which can move a paragraph, which can alter a page break. The effect may extend beyond the page where the change begins. Added pages can affect the contents, index, cross-references and cover dimensions. Even when software updates some elements automatically, someone must inspect the resulting pages.
Assess the repair at the appropriate scale. Correcting a wrong number may have no layout consequence but require related calculations to be checked. Replacing a character's name may affect dialogue, headings and an illustration caption. A local-looking change can have a conceptual reach larger than its physical size.
Do not solve reflow by quietly shrinking type or tightening one page until the old pagination returns. Such adjustments may create inconsistent texture or poorer reading conditions. Let the person handling layout choose an appropriate remedy, with the complete correction visible. Preserving a previous page count is not more important than producing a coherent page.
Close the decision clearly
Keep one consolidated record of late changes. Include the location, reason where necessary, agreed replacement and status. When two people comment on the same passage, settle their disagreement before instructions are applied. Parallel messages containing different versions of a sentence make an avoidable production problem.
Verify the correction in the new proof and inspect its surroundings. If it creates another issue, address that consequence explicitly. Do not assume that because a correction was requested it was applied, or that because it was applied it was applied correctly.
A useful stopping rule is that each late intervention must solve a defined problem that matters to the published reading experience. Optional wording ideas can wait for a future revision. The final proof should become progressively more stable as decisions are resolved, rather than opening a new cycle of possibilities with every reading.
