CasperWasp
Get started
How it works · Collaboration

Threaded comments

Attach feedback to exact passages, @mention teammates, and resolve threads without leaving Document Studio.

Collaboration

Overview

In most document workflows, the hardest part is not drafting — it is reconciling feedback. Spreadsheets of comments, redlined attachments, and Slack threads that reference “page 4 somewhere near the liability clause” create delay and silent disagreement. Threaded comments in CasperWasp Document Studio attach discussion to the exact passage under review, so context travels with the text instead of living in a side channel nobody can search later.

Each thread is a first-class object on the document: it has an author, a selection, replies, and a resolve state. Mentions notify the right teammate without broadcasting every nitpick to the whole organisation. When a thread is resolved, the conversation remains available for audit and for anyone who needs to understand why a sentence changed — but it no longer blocks the next reviewer.

Comments sit beside the same collaboration stack as live presence, version history, and approval workflows. That means a legal editor can leave a clause-level note, a product owner can reply with intent, and an approver can later see that the open questions were closed before the document was routed. AI writing tools can still reshape a paragraph; humans use comments to decide whether that reshape is acceptable.

Because editing itself does not consume AI tokens, teams can debate wording as long as needed. Tokens only apply when someone runs a generation or rewrite tool. Commenting, mentioning, and resolving are free collaboration surfaces — built for the marketplace’s Document Studio pillar, not bolted on as a separate review product.

In depth

Understanding Threaded comments

How the feature works in practice inside the CasperWasp marketplace — and how it connects to the rest of your work.

Why passage-level feedback beats inbox review

Email review forces reviewers to quote text, invent line numbers, or paste screenshots. The original author then hunts for the matching sentence while the draft keeps changing underneath them. Passage-level comments remove that hunt: the selection is the citation.

Threads also preserve order. A reply sits under the original note, so “agree — change the indemnification cap” is not lost between unrelated messages. When two reviewers disagree, the thread becomes the negotiation record instead of a private DM that never reaches the document owner.

For regulated or customer-facing packs — MSAs, SOPs, investor updates — that history matters. Months later, someone can open the document and see why a clause was softened, who approved the softening, and which comment thread captured the decision. The marketplace keeps that trail next to versions and approvals rather than in a third-party inbox archive.

CasperWasp treats comments as part of Document Studio collaboration, not as a chat widget. They work with organisation roles: editors and admins participate in review; viewers can be limited by how you share the document. Spending gates still apply only to owners and admins when someone buys tokens or changes plans — comments never touch the wallet.

Mentions, ownership, and closing the loop

A good comment system fails if every note is ambient noise. @mentions let you pull a specific person into a specific decision — counsel for a warranty clause, finance for a pricing table, brand for a customer-facing paragraph. The rest of the organisation stays focused until they are needed.

Resolve is the other half of ownership. Leaving threads open forever trains teams to ignore them. Resolve when the text is updated, when you accept the suggestion, or when you deliberately defer the change to a later version. Unresolved threads become a pre-approval checklist: if anything is still open, the pack is not ready to route.

Pair comments with version history when a discussion produces a large rewrite. Save a numbered version after resolving a contentious section so restore points line up with decisions. Approvers can then compare versions and read the related threads without replaying the whole negotiation.

If AI tools rewrite a commented passage, re-check the thread. The selection may still point at the right idea even if wording moved. Re-anchor or leave a follow-up reply so the next reader is not reviewing stale advice against new text.

How comments fit the CasperWasp collaboration stack

Threaded comments are the async layer. Live collaboration is the sync layer — presence and concurrent editing when people are in the doc together. Version history is the safety net. Approvals and signatures are the gate. Watermarked share links are the external read-only path. Comments glue those modes together by capturing decisions that happen between live sessions.

Design Studio assets and PDF Intelligence findings often land in the same pack. Comment on the document body where a logo placement, stamp, or citation claim needs human confirmation. Keep brand and source debates on the deliverable, not in a design file nobody opens during legal review.

Organisation libraries keep the document and its comment history in shared space. When membership changes, the trail remains with the document rather than vanishing with a departing contractor’s email account. That is one of the practical reasons CasperWasp scopes work to organisations instead of personal inboxes.

There is no separate “comments product” to buy. Open Document Studio from your CasperWasp account, invite members with the right roles, and start threads. AI generation remains metered by tokens; failed AI calls consume zero tokens; editing, commenting, and export stay free.

How it works

Step by step

A practical walkthrough of threaded comments in the CasperWasp marketplace.

  1. 01

    Open the document in Document Studio

    Create a new draft or open an existing organisation document. Confirm you have editor access if you need to leave or resolve comments; viewers may only read depending on how the document is shared.

  2. 02

    Select the exact passage under review

    Highlight the sentence, clause, table cell, or heading that needs feedback. Narrow selections keep threads actionable; broad whole-section selections make replies harder to apply.

  3. 03

    Start a thread with a clear ask

    Write what is wrong, what you propose, and what “done” looks like. Prefer “please confirm the 30-day termination notice” over “looks off.” Ambiguous comments create more comments.

  4. 04

    @mention the owner of the decision

    Pull in counsel, finance, product, or brand as needed. Mentions route attention without flooding the whole organisation with every editorial nitpick.

  5. 05

    Reply in-thread until the text is updated

    Keep the negotiation inside the thread. When wording changes, note what you changed so later readers see the outcome without diffing the entire document by eye.

  6. 06

    Resolve the thread when the point is settled

    Mark resolved after the edit lands, after you accept the suggestion as-is, or after you explicitly defer it. Unresolved threads should block casual “ready for approval” claims.

  7. 07

    Scan remaining open threads before routing

    Before approval workflows or signature requests, walk open comments. Close noise, escalate real blockers, and save a version if the review cycle was heavy.

  8. 08

    Export or share only after review is clean

    Export stays free. For external reviewers, prefer watermarked share links on drafts. Keep comment hygiene high so what leaves the organisation matches what the team agreed.

When

When to use this

  • Legal or compliance review of contracts, policies, and SOPs where clause-level precision matters
  • Multi-stakeholder drafts (product, sales, finance, brand) that would otherwise spawn parallel email chains
  • Agency or contractor handoffs where feedback must stay attached to the client deliverable
  • Pre-approval cleanup so approvers are not the first people to spot open questions
  • Post-AI rewrite review when a human needs to accept or reject generated wording on specific passages
  • Customer-facing packs (proposals, onboarding guides) that need tone and accuracy checks from subject-matter owners
  • Audit-friendly teams that want a record of why a sentence changed without digging through chat history
  • Long documents where “page 7 feedback” is too vague to be useful
Who

Who it is for

  • Legal and ops teams reviewing agreements and internal policies
  • Founders and product leads coordinating cross-functional narrative drafts
  • Agencies collaborating with client stakeholders inside one organisation workspace
  • Editors who own final wording but need expert input on narrow sections
  • Compliance reviewers who must leave an on-document trail of decisions
  • Managers who want reviewers to resolve threads instead of leaving perpetual open comments
  • Any Document Studio team that already uses versions and approvals and needs async review in between
Examples

Real workflows

Concrete jobs teams run with this feature — not abstract capability lists.

A SaaS MSA draft: counsel comments on indemnification, finance replies on liability caps, the owner resolves both threads after the clause is rewritten, then routes for approval.
An SOP for warehouse intake: operations flags a missing safety step on a numbered procedure; the author updates the list and resolves the thread before publishing the PDF export.
A fundraising update: the CEO @mentions finance on the runway table; finance corrects the figure in-thread; marketing resolves after the paragraph matches the spreadsheet.
An agency proposal: the client’s brand lead comments on headline tone; the account editor rewrites, replies with the new line, and resolves before sending a watermarked share link.
A policy pack after AI expand: a reviewer opens threads on three overconfident claims; the author either cites sources via PDF Intelligence or deletes the claims, then resolves.
A bilingual customer letter: a native speaker comments on awkward phrasing in the translated section; the editor fixes tone and resolves before signature request.
Included

What you get

  • Passage-anchored comment threads tied to document selections
  • @mentions that notify the right teammate without whole-org noise
  • Reply chains that keep decisions in order under the original note
  • Resolve workflow to close settled discussions
  • Comment history that remains with the organisation document
  • Works alongside live presence for sync + async review
  • Natural pairing with version history for decision checkpoints
  • Pre-approval hygiene before routing workflows
  • No AI token use for commenting, mentioning, or resolving
  • Free editing and export while review continues
  • Role-aware participation inside organisation workspaces
  • One marketplace account — no separate review tool to buy
Tips

Do it well

Write comments as decisions: state the problem, the ask, and the acceptance criteria.
Keep selections tight so replies map cleanly to the edit that will resolve them.
Resolve aggressively; open threads should mean open risk.
Save a numbered version after closing a contentious review cycle.
Re-check threads after large AI rewrites — wording may have moved under the selection.
Use mentions sparingly for owners of the decision, not for every spectator.
Before export or share links, require zero unresolved blockers on customer-facing packs.
Pair legal comments with PDF Intelligence citations when claims must point at source filings.
Pitfalls

Common mistakes to avoid

The shortcuts that waste time or produce weak deliverables.

  • Leaving vague notes like “fix this” with no selection and no proposed direction
  • Starting a parallel email thread that diverges from the on-document comments
  • Never resolving threads, which trains the team to ignore the panel entirely
  • Commenting on a whole section when only one sentence is wrong
  • Routing for approval while high-severity threads are still open
  • Assuming AI rewrite automatically addresses a comment without human confirmation
  • Sharing a draft externally before comment hygiene and watermarks are in place
FAQ

Common questions

Related

More how-it-works pages

Collaboration

Live collaboration

See who is in the document, where they are working, and co-edit intentionally without accidental overwrite chaos.

Collaboration

Version history

Numbered saves with compare and one-click restore so risky edits and AI rewrites never erase your last good draft.

Collaboration

Approval workflows

Route documents through review chains so the right people sign off before export, share, or signature requests.

Document Studio

Document Studio

Draft, refine, collaborate on, and export business documents with AI beside the cursor inside CasperWasp.

Collaboration

Signature requests

Collect signatures in the same organisation trail as the document — without bouncing to a disconnected e-sign silo.

Open Document Studio

Part of the CasperWasp marketplace — documents and design under one subscription.

Open Document StudioAll features

Try the CasperWasp marketplace

Create an account and use Document Studio and Design Studio from one subscription — write documents, analyse PDFs, and generate brand assets with transparent AI usage.

Create an accountSee pricing

Plans from ₹300/month · Cancel anytime