Some clients are meticulous. Others simply need to feel like they caught something. In the world of 1990s print shops, where proofs were physical and corrections meant real time and money, one particular customer developed a reputation for always spotting an “error.” Every single proof required a revision before he would sign off.
An independent designer working in suburban Chicago says the complaints were never about major issues. A line looked crooked. A word seemed too dark. The pattern became predictable.
So instead of arguing, the team decided to lean into it. They created a quiet system that guaranteed the client would find exactly what he was looking for. The result? Fewer headaches and a strangely satisfied customer. Scroll down to see the clever workaround they used.
A chronically critical client forced a print shop to devise a clever proofing trick to keep projects moving
When someone insists on finding a flaw every single time, it rarely starts with the flaw itself. It often begins with fear. Fear of looking careless. Fear of being overlooked. Fear of losing control.
In this case, a customer repeatedly delayed approval by spotting minor or questionable errors, while a designer quietly absorbed the frustration. On the surface, it was about crooked lines and darkened words. Beneath that, it was about power and reassurance.
The designer’s response, creating two proofs, one intentionally flawed, may look like playful retaliation. Yet psychologically, it reads more as self-protection.
After repeated scrutiny, professionals can experience what researchers describe as “threatened competence,” a stress response triggered when expertise is persistently questioned. When effort is dismissed again and again, it erodes morale.
The designer’s strategy restored balance without confrontation. By giving the customer something obvious to “catch,” he allowed the man to feel effective while reclaiming workflow stability.
Why would the customer need that ritual of correction? Research on perfectionism suggests that some individuals equate control with security.
According to an article in Psychology Today, excessive fault-finding can stem from an underlying need for control driven by anxiety about uncertainty. When outcomes feel unpredictable, identifying mistakes becomes a way to assert relevance and authority. In other words, the customer may not have been trying to undermine the designer; he may have been trying to soothe his own unease.
Organizational psychologist Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, explains that workplace dynamics often revolve around perceived value. People want to feel that they contribute meaningfully.
When their role feels ambiguous, they sometimes overcompensate by inserting themselves more forcefully into the process. Constant correction can become a performance of importance.
The clever compliance satisfied both emotional needs. The customer maintained his sense of oversight. The designer regained efficiency and dignity. There is a quiet satisfaction in that outcome. No shouting. No escalation. Just a subtle recalibration of roles.
Readers often feel relief when justice appears balanced rather than explosive. In this story, the “revenge” was measured and almost compassionate.
Still, it leaves a reflective question. When someone repeatedly finds fault, is the solution to outmaneuver the pattern or to gently address the insecurity beneath it? Not every situation allows for open dialogue, especially in business.
Yet understanding the emotional drivers at play can soften resentment. Sometimes the flaw being hunted is not in the work at all, but in a person’s need to feel secure.
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
These Reddit users described “decoy mistakes” to satisfy nitpicky reviewers
These commenters shared strategic errors to speed approvals
These folks reused old versions to fake fixes and please bosses
These users left easy fixes so clients felt in control
This commenter praised creative placebo fixes for impossible complainers
This user admitted chore shortcuts to avoid deeper inspection
This Redditor cited decoy content used to distract management
Perfection isn’t always the goal. Sometimes approval is. Was it manipulative to plant a harmless mistake? Or was it simply smart client management? The final product remained accurate. The customer felt engaged. And the endless nitpicking stopped.
Have you ever left a tiny flaw just to save yourself from bigger ones? Or would you stick to principle and fight every red pen?
