Log Client Revision Rounds Until the Scope Conversation Writes Itself — Free
Revision rounds are the quiet way a fixed-price job loses its margin: one more tweak, then a changed direction, then a new stakeholder with opinions. Counted and dated, the same requests become a scope conversation with evidence in it.
The proof surface
Free path: the tool computes locally in this browser with no key and no account. Where an AI step helps, any free chat assistant works — free tiers exist (Google AI Studio, Groq), but plans and limits change, so check the provider's own page. No third-party service is claimed here as verified: UNCONFIRMED — model has no browsing access this session.
Why the flat version breaks
An email thread contains every request and no count, so the conversation happens in the worst possible place — at the end, from memory. A dated log against the included rounds turns it into a question of one number: which round are we on.
How to use the revision rounds job tag in four passes
The quote, the contract or the order confirmation has a number in it. Entering that number rather than a remembered one is what makes the count defensible later.
Date, time, what was asked and who asked. The time matters because two rounds in one day is a pattern, and the person asking matters because a new stakeholder often changes the scope rather than the design.
The tag flags the request that crosses the included rounds. That moment is the right time to send a change-order note, because the work has not been done yet.
Quote the dates and the requests, state which round the project is on and what the extra round costs. Clients rarely argue with a list of their own requests.
SAMPLE DATA, NOT A VERIFIED CLAIM: the starter record is five revision requests against a two-round contract, with the third round crossing the line. Replace these values with your own source before you rely on anything.
What breaks first
Absorbing the extra rounds to keep the peace
Unbilled revision work is the most common way a fixed-price project loses money, and it usually continues because the count was never visible. The tag exists to make it visible early.
Counting emails instead of rounds
Three emails about one change is one round. Counting messages overstates the client's requests and weakens the strongest argument you have.
Raising the change order after the work is finished
A price for work already delivered is a negotiation. A price for the next round, named in advance, is an agreement.
What you pay otherwise
| The usual route | What it leaves out | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Two absorbed rounds | Days of unpaid work on a fixed-price job, invisible in the invoice | the project margin |
| A project-management subscription | Monthly fee for a task board that does not count rounds against the contract | $12–$30 a month |
| A scope dispute at handover | Renegotiation at the point where the client holds every card and you are waiting on the final payment | the final payment |
| This page + the free revision rounds job tag | Computed in your tab, result on screen before you type anything | $0 |
Try the free revision rounds job tag right here
Load the starter project and raise the threshold to 5 rounds to see the tag stop flagging.
FIRST-LOAD · sample record filed
Take it into the free revision rounds job tag
The companion app runs the same logic with a numbered intake, three starter records, a stateful share link, the one-time printable layer, and the local history shelf.
Open the free revision rounds job tag →Keep the work if you will use it again
The full tag: every round dated, the count against the included rounds, the per-month breakdown and the crossing round flagged, unlimited re-runs.
The on-screen result is free and complete. The one-time layer adds a tangible file you keep and the saved history that comes with it.
Boundary: This counts requests you record against the rounds you were contracted for; it is not legal or contractual advice and it does not interpret your agreement. Scope, revision limits and change-order terms are defined by your own contract — check the wording and, on a large disputed amount, take advice from a qualified professional.