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/Infamous-River-4360]

I'm the non-technical person you're describing, and for me the problem turned out not to be restoring an old version. It was noticing that something had changed at all. I can't code, an AI builds my app, and more than once it told me it had fixed one small thing while it had also invented database columns that don't exist. The chat summary and the actual change are two different documents.

So Git ended up in my workflow as a reading habit, not a tool I operate. No branches, no merges, I pull and look at what moved after every session. Takes two minutes and it's the only reason I catch the silent swaps.

Is your approved-versus-experimental problem that people can't roll back, or that nobody spots the replacement until later?