Evaluate screen-recording review through the complete access lifecycle: an authorized reviewer can find the right segment, inspect only permitted material and lose access when the review purpose ends. Request concrete evidence for playback permissions, exports and retention rather than accepting a general security statement.
Level AI’s recorder FAQ covers endpoint software; customer-specific retention commitments depend on applicable contractual documents. AWS documents separate permissions for screen-recording access and download. These are product-specific public descriptions, not results of our own product testing. Confirm your required configuration, evidence access and operating responsibilities in a scoped demonstration.
What should a minimum access demonstration prove?
Use approved synthetic recordings and test identities in an authorized environment. The matrix is a proposed procurement test; it does not claim any supplier passes it.
| Identity and action | Expected result to agree in advance | Evidence retained |
|---|---|---|
| Permitted reviewer opens assigned contact | Only intended recording and permitted audio are available | Role, test contact and observed playback |
| Reviewer tries an out-of-scope contact | Access denied or scope restriction documented | Observed result and responsible control owner |
| Viewer attempts download | Download follows the separately agreed permission | Observed export behavior and file handling owner |
| Temporary reviewer loses the role | Subsequent access follows the agreed revocation boundary | Removal time and follow-up attempt |
Ask whether recorded audio, screen video, derived clips and offline files follow the same policy; do not infer one from another. Our recommendation is to document each object’s owner and removal boundary, then send unresolved retention or employee-notice requirements to the responsible specialist. Technical procurement checks cannot establish a lawful retention period. Do not change production permissions merely to complete the demonstration.
Which reviewer roles need to be defined?
List the people who need live viewing, playback, export, annotation or administration. Separate those activities instead of assigning every reviewer a broad administrator role for convenience. Record the permitted team or interaction scope and the business reason for access. Confirm who can approve a temporary exception.
| Review action | Evidence to request |
|---|---|
| Playback | Authorized and unauthorized test identities |
| Search | Results limited to the intended team or record scope |
| Export | Whether files can leave the controlled review interface |
| Shared link | Recipient restrictions and expiration behavior |
| Offboarding | Loss of playback and export access after removal |
How should retention be investigated?
Ask what is retained for the original video, derived clips, transcripts, annotations and downloaded files. A deletion setting on one object does not establish deletion of every related copy. Obtain the current product and contractual explanation of retention, backup handling and any customer-managed storage involved.
Map the evidence lifecycle from capture through review and eventual removal. Determine what happens when a QA case or appeal remains open near the intended deletion date. Ask the responsible owners to decide the required treatment; this article does not establish a legal retention period.
What should a practical demonstration include?
- A reviewer locates a permitted interaction and the correct time segment.
- An out-of-scope reviewer attempts the same lookup with approved test accounts.
- The operator demonstrates which viewing and export events are recorded, if supported.
- A temporary access assignment expires or is removed in an approved test environment.
- A sample recording follows the documented lifecycle without relying on undocumented manual steps.
Use synthetic or approved material for the demonstration. Do not place sensitive recordings in a test merely to discover what masking or access controls do. Treat absent product evidence as an open requirement and ask for a narrower supported workflow if necessary.
How does this affect the buying decision?
Compare actual reviewer work with the administration needed to keep access current. Include owner time, audit evidence retrieval and export handling in implementation planning. If essential controls depend on another system, name that dependency and its owner rather than assuming the recording product supplies it.
For the analytics use case, see screen-and-audio evaluation. For evidence retained during a challenge, see the QA appeal case file.
Limits
Sources were checked on 20 October 2026. We have not tested permissions, deletion, audit events or recording security in either product. This is technical procurement guidance, not a compliance certification or legal retention policy. Confirm customer-specific controls and responsibilities with the appropriate product, IT and privacy owners before implementation.