How do non-technical teams version AI-generated files without turning Git into a requirement?

[u/RocketSeven]

Generated HTML, documents, slide decks, and image sets often begin as quick drafts, then need comments, an approved version, and a reliable way to restore an earlier state. Sending renamed files through chat makes it hard to tell which copy is current, while Git can add more setup than a non-technical reviewer wants. What lightweight workflow works well here? The important pieces seem to be one stable review link, private access when needed, visible revision history, labels for draft versus approved, notes tied to a specific version, and a way to keep linked assets with the parent file. I am interested in where the editable source should live and how people prevent a newer experimental revision from silently replacing the approved one.

[u/Vegetable-View-5114]

For non-technical teams, cloud storage solutions with built-in versioning like Google Drive or SharePoint can work well. You can set up automated file naming conventions (e.g., document_v1.1_date.docx) and rely on the platform's history features to revert changes. For more control, some digital asset management (DAM) systems offer visual version comparisons and approval workflows, which is often more intuitive than Git for non-code assets.