---
title: "How workflow checkpoints keep a review from restarting"
description: "Progress tracks how far a project has moved; checkpoint tracks what's actually been reviewed. Why regenerating content invalidates a prior checkpoint."
excerpt: "Progress tells you how far the project has come; checkpoint tells you what's actually been reviewed."
source_url: "https://appstorehelper.com/guides/workflow-checkpoint-and-progress-tracking"
mirror_url: "https://appstorehelper.com/mirror/guides/workflow-checkpoint-and-progress-tracking"
section: "Editorial guides for app-store growth teams"
locale: "en"
published_at: "2026-08-08"
updated_at: "2026-08-08"
reading_time: "3 min read"
tags:
  - "review checkpoint"
  - "workflow progress"
  - "review workflow"
  - "project tracking"
---

## Direct answer

A project stores two separate pieces of process state: workflow progress and a workflow checkpoint. Progress tracks how far a project has moved through generation and setup; the checkpoint specifically holds where a review was left off, so reopening a project later resumes from that point instead of forcing a reviewer to re-evaluate everything from the start. Losing that distinction is why teams sometimes re-review content that was already checked.

## Progress and checkpoint answer different questions

Progress answers "how far has this project gotten." Checkpoint answers "where did the last reviewer stop, and what had already been decided." A project can have high progress and still have an outdated checkpoint if new content was generated after the last review — that gap is exactly what the checkpoint state exists to make visible.

## Why this matters more on longer review cycles

For a project reviewed once and shipped immediately, checkpoint state barely matters — there's no gap between generation and review to track. It matters on projects that go through multiple review rounds over days or weeks, where different people, or the same person on a different day, need to know exactly what was already reviewed versus what changed since.

## Regenerating content invalidates the checkpoint for that content

If a section of generated content is regenerated after a checkpoint was set, that checkpoint no longer accurately describes the current state of the project — the reviewed version and the current version have diverged. Treat any regenerate after a review checkpoint as a signal that the affected section needs another review pass, not as something the previous checkpoint already covers.

## Common mistakes

- Assuming a project's overall progress being high means every section has been reviewed, when only some sections may have reached checkpoint.
- Regenerating content after review without re-flagging that section for another review pass.
- Not checking checkpoint state before resuming a review, leading to redundant re-review of sections that were already signed off.

## Checklist

1. Check checkpoint state before starting a review session, not just overall progress.
2. Treat any regenerate after a checkpoint as invalidating that checkpoint for the affected section.
3. Use checkpoint state to resume multi-session reviews instead of re-evaluating the entire project each time.

## Operating rule

Progress tells you how far the project has come; checkpoint tells you what's actually been reviewed — don't let a high progress number stand in for a review that hasn't happened yet.