A reviewer should know which reporting period, data cutoff, metric definitions, and draft version they are approving. Give them the source tables or calculation notes for consequential numbers, plus a short list of anomalies and open questions. Separate factual verification from editorial polish.
If a number changes after sign-off, recheck the affected chart and interpretation before distribution. Record the approver, timestamp, and version; do not reuse a prior approval for a revised dataset. If a figure is still preliminary, label it in the report rather than assuming readers will infer uncertainty. A reliable approval process leaves a trail from headline claim back to source data.
Akousa