Written for the person executing, not for the archive
There's one writing criterion: a colleague who wasn't in the consultation has to be able to execute by reading the document. If understanding it requires asking the person who wrote it, the protocol has failed its purpose, however complete it is.
In balayage the information that genuinely matters is limited and precise: sectioning, starting height of the lightening, thickness of the pieces, product and volume, processing time, planned toning, and what to do if the base doesn't lift as expected. The rest is documentation.
That last entry is what separates a useful protocol from a list. Stating the alternative plan in advance — where to stop, what not to force, when to postpone to the next session — prevents the decision being made under pressure with product already processing.
What makes a protocol genuinely executable
The chart is qualitative and shows how much each entry affects the ability to execute without asking for clarification.
What to include and what not
The table separates the entries that serve execution from those that lengthen the document without adding anything.
| Entry | Needed | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Sectioning and piece thickness | Yes | Determines the result and repeatability |
| Starting height of the lightening | Yes | Defines the attachment and how it grows |
| Alternative plan | Yes | Prevents decisions under pressure |
| Aesthetic description of the effect | No | It guides no technical action |
What to write
Sectioning and thickness
They determine result and repeatability.
Starting height
It defines the attachment and the growth.
Alternative plan
Where to stop if the base doesn't lift.
Update at the end
With what was actually done.
How to use it
- Fill it in during the consultation, not after the service.
- Have a colleague who wasn't there read it: if they have questions, fix it.
- Update it at the end with what was actually done.
Updating at the end of the service is what makes the document useful at the next visit. A protocol describing only the plan, without recording how the base responded, forces the technical assessment to start again each time.
The colleague test is also the fastest way to calibrate the level of detail. No questions means the document is complete; three questions are exactly the three entries to add to the template, which then improves with use.
When consultation becomes the real bottleneck
Saloria connects the protocol to the consultation, so the team sees why a direction was chosen and not just what they have to do. The product works on tablet next to the client: face analysis, cautious preview, technical protocol and look plan.
Frequently asked questions
How long should it be?
One page. It should contain sectioning, starting height, product and timings, toning and the alternative plan: the rest guides no action.
Who writes it?
Whoever runs the consultation, while the client is seated. It should then be updated at the end with what was actually carried out.
How do you check it works?
By having a colleague who wasn't there read it: if they can execute without asking anything, the protocol is complete.