Most businesses like this already have a real process: an order comes in, someone builds a proof or spec, it goes to the customer, the customer approves or asks for changes, and only then does the job move to production. We map that process before touching anything and mark which parts are mechanical (generating the proof, sending it, logging the response, chasing a non-reply) and which part is a genuine decision that belongs to the customer. That approval step stays a decision for a person. Everything around it can run on its own.
In practice the system watches the order queue, builds or assembles the proof from whatever inputs the business already uses, and sends it out by email, text, or a customer portal, whichever the business already relies on. It logs the send, watches for a reply, and if nothing comes back within a set window it sends a reminder, then escalates to a person if the customer still hasn't responded after a couple of attempts. Only when an approval is recorded, an explicit yes, a signature, a reply that says go, does the system fire the trigger that moves the order into production. We run a similar shape of scheduling ourselves, over a hundred jobs running around the clock across dozens of live integrations, so a proof-and-approval loop like this is a familiar pattern, not a one-off build.
Where this doesn't fit as cleanly: if revisions are open-ended, if customers routinely ask for several rounds of changes before they'll sign off, a system can still manage the back-and-forth logistics but someone still has to make each round of creative or spec changes. And if the proof itself needs judgment the business hasn't written down as rules (this color reads warmer than that one, this layout looks cluttered), that step stays with a person until the rules exist. Before automating this, look at how many orders get approved on the first proof versus how many need multiple rounds. That ratio tells you how much of the loop is actually mechanical.