You walked a flow once and someone else needs to see it. Maybe a developer needs to fix the third screen, maybe a teammate needs to run the same steps next week. The instinct is to reach for a step-by-step doc that records every click. Sometimes that is right. Often it is more than the job needs.
The choice is really between two shapes of output. A full step doc captures a repeatable procedure, every action in order, as a reference someone follows. A short published review captures what you noticed on specific screens and hands it to someone to act on. They overlap enough to look interchangeable and differ enough that picking wrong wastes an hour.
What each one is actually for
A step doc, the kind you make with a tool like Tango, records a procedure. It follows your clicks, grabs a screenshot at each step, and produces a numbered walkthrough: click here, then here, then type this. The output is a reference someone reads to reproduce the flow. Its value grows the more times the doc gets reused.
A captured review is built to move one observation from your head to someone who can act on it. You grab a still, drop a numbered pin, say or type what is wrong or what should change, and publish a link. The receiver opens it, reads exactly what you marked, and does the fix. Its value is in the handoff, not in being read fifty times.
For the case in the title, one flow, handed off once, the review is usually the lighter fit. You are not documenting a process anyone will follow again. You are pointing at what matters and sending it. If you are weighing this specific tradeoff, the Tango alternative comparison lays out where each shape earns its keep.
Effort to produce, and effort to change
A step doc's cost is front-loaded. Every click becomes a step, so a ten-click flow becomes a ten-step doc whether or not all ten steps carry information. That is exactly what you want when the whole procedure matters. It is overhead when only screen three is broken and the other nine screens are fine.
A review lets you capture only the screens that matter. Broken checkout button? Capture that one frame, pin the button, write the fix. Two screens, not ten. You can also dictate the comment instead of typing it in Chrome or Edge, which is faster when you are describing something you can see.
Edits cut the other way over time. A step doc is meant to be maintained: when the flow changes, you update the doc, and it keeps serving. A published review is not built for long maintenance. In Cobalt Capture, a review made without signing in is kept for 30 days, and after 7 days a review goes read-only for its owner unless you are on Pro. Editing, exports, and agent access stop at that point, though the shared link keeps working for the people you sent it to. That is honest about the shape of the tool: it is a handoff artifact, not a living document.
What the receiver does next
This is the dimension that usually decides it. A step doc hands the reader a procedure to follow. A review hands the reader a task to complete.
If the receiver is a developer fixing what you found, the review is more direct. They get the marked-up still, the pinned spot, and your comment, and they can mark each comment resolved as they go. No bug tracker required. If the receiver is an AI coding agent, the same review is available as clean markdown, and an agent that opens the link is served that markdown automatically. A step doc is written for a human to read in order, not for an agent to parse into a fix.
If the receiver needs to do the flow themselves, cleanly, later, the step doc wins. A new hire learning your refund process is better served by a numbered walkthrough than by your notes on one run. When the goal is repeatable instruction, capture the whole procedure.
Where a review does not fit
Be plain about the limits. A published review is not a substitute for real documentation. If you need a maintained SOP that the team follows for a year, a review going read-only after seven days is the wrong tool, and a step doc or dedicated process documentation software fits better. Cobalt Capture also captures still frames, not video, so a flow that only makes sense in motion is not its strength. And it does not track workflow states or assign owners; it is not a bug tracker.
It also does not record your clicks for you. A step doc auto-generates each step as you go. With a review you choose the frames, which is less automatic but means you skip the nine screens that did not matter.
A quick way to decide
| Question | Step doc | Captured review |
|---|---|---|
| Reused many times? | Yes | No |
| Every step matters? | Yes | Only some do |
| Receiver follows it or fixes it? | Follows | Fixes |
| Needs to survive a year? | Yes | No |
| Going to an agent? | No | Yes, as markdown |
If most of your answers land in the right column, you have a handoff, not a document. Grab the two screens that matter, pin the spot, and publish. You can start a review in a browser tab with no install and no password, and only add an email when the link is ready to send. Pro is $5 a month if you want reviews to stay editable past the seven days.