The moment you share a Figma link with a non-designer stakeholder, the canvas becomes collaborative in a way you didn't intend. Not because the stakeholder is malicious — they almost never are — but because a fully open canvas invites editing, and editing by someone who doesn't know which elements are intentional, which are interdependent, and which are locked for a reason is how campaign assets break in ways that take hours to untangle.
Layer locking is not new — it exists in Figma, in Adobe Illustrator, in older desktop design applications going back decades. What's less developed is a principled approach to which layers to lock, when to lock them, and what the lock is actually communicating to the reviewer. That framing — layer lock as a communication mechanism, not just an accidental-edit prevention — changes how you apply it.
What layer lock communicates
When a designer locks a layer or a group before sharing a canvas with a stakeholder, the default interpretation is defensive: you're protecting your work from being accidentally changed. That framing is technically accurate but misses the more important function, which is spatial communication.
A locked layer communicates: this element is decided. The design decision embedded in this layer is not open for discussion in this review round. You can look at it, comment on it, react to it — but it's not in the scope of current revision.
An unlocked layer communicates: this element is still being considered. Your input here is relevant and actionable.
When you share a canvas with all layers unlocked, you're implicitly telling the stakeholder that everything is negotiable. Even if you know that the logo placement, the primary typeface, and the color system are already locked — because those were established in a prior round — the open canvas doesn't signal that. A stakeholder who doesn't know the review history might naturally start providing feedback on the most visually prominent elements, which could easily be the ones that are already settled.
Explicit layer locking turns the canvas into a conversation guide. It directs the reviewer's attention toward what's actually open without requiring a separate briefing document to convey the same information.
A practical framework for what to lock
The right locking state for a canvas depends on where you are in the approval cycle, but a few categories of layers almost always warrant locking when sharing with non-designer stakeholders:
Brand system elements. Typography hierarchy, color palette applications, logo lockups, and grid structure are usually established before any campaign review begins. These should be locked in any stakeholder-facing canvas unless the review is explicitly about the brand system itself. An unlocked type layer invites font feedback from stakeholders who are not the right decision-makers for brand system changes.
Approved prior-round decisions. Anything that was reviewed and approved in a previous round should be locked in the current round's canvas. This prevents re-opening already-settled questions and ensures that feedback concentrates on what's actually new.
Technical production layers. Bleed marks, safe zones, hidden guides, production notes, and asset references that don't have visual significance in the review context should be locked — and ideally moved to a separate layer group labeled clearly — so the stakeholder's view of the canvas isn't cluttered with production scaffolding.
Compositional structure where alternatives aren't being proposed. If the layout grid and compositional structure are settled, lock them. Structural changes late in a campaign cycle are expensive; locking communicates that those decisions are upstream of this review.
When to unlock: giving stakeholders the right surface
Locking everything is as counterproductive as locking nothing. A fully locked canvas gives the stakeholder no action surface — they can review and comment, but there's a subtle psychological impact: a locked canvas feels finished, which can suppress the substantive feedback you actually need on the elements that are still in play.
The unlock discipline is equally important. What should remain unlocked in a stakeholder review canvas depends on what you genuinely want input on:
- Copy content layers — text that a marketing or brand manager may need to edit for accuracy, regulatory language, or messaging alignment.
- Photography or illustration selections — if the review purpose includes choosing between visual options, the candidate frames should be accessible.
- Color variant layers — where the review is asking the stakeholder to choose between two or more color treatments.
- Callout and annotation layers — elements you may want the stakeholder to contribute information to, such as pricing, product names, or dates that haven't been confirmed yet.
One useful heuristic: if you would be surprised and somewhat annoyed if a stakeholder changed this element, it should be locked. If you'd be fine with them editing it and would review the change, leave it open.
The handoff canvas vs. the working canvas
It's worth distinguishing between two contexts where layer locking applies: the stakeholder review canvas (where you're sharing work for input and approval) and the handoff canvas (where you're providing assets for someone else to use — a developer, a vendor, a producer).
In the stakeholder review context, locking is about directing feedback. In the handoff context, locking is about asset integrity. A vendor receiving a print-production canvas with unlocked layers may inadvertently move an element during their own production workflow — not because they're careless but because they're working in an environment where "edit" is a normal operation.
The handoff canvas should be more aggressively locked than the review canvas. At handoff, the right question isn't "what do we want feedback on?" but "what can't change without coming back to us first?" The answer to that question at handoff is usually everything. A production handoff canvas where all design layers are locked — and only vendor-relevant production layers are accessible — communicates clearly that this is an approved final state, not a work-in-progress open for interpretation.
Consider a scenario: a brand team delivers a campaign to an out-of-home production vendor in late 2024. The production file contains the approved artwork alongside a set of technical specification layers the vendor needs to interact with. The design layers are fully locked; the specification layers are unlocked and clearly labeled. The vendor completes their production setup without touching the artwork, and the campaign ships without a discrepancy review cycle. That's the handoff canvas working as intended.
The trust question
Some stakeholders react negatively to locked layers, reading the lock as "we don't trust you with the file." It's worth being direct about this dynamic rather than avoiding it.
We're not saying stakeholders shouldn't have access to the reasoning behind design decisions — they should, and comment threads are the right place for that conversation. The lock isn't about trust. It's about design integrity. When elements are interdependent — and in a well-constructed brand canvas, most visual elements have at least some interdependency — editing one element without understanding its relationship to others produces a different kind of file than what was approved. The lock protects the approved state, which ultimately serves the stakeholder's interest as much as the designer's.
The framing that tends to land well: "I've locked the elements that are already decided so that feedback concentrates on the things still in play. If you want to discuss any of the locked elements, just leave a comment and we can talk about it." That reframes the lock from a restriction into a workflow tool — which is what it is.
When the locked-layer handoff becomes a standard part of how a team shares work, stakeholders tend to adapt quickly. The expectation shift from "here's a live file you can edit" to "here's a canvas designed for your review" is a workflow maturation that benefits everyone involved, because it reduces the frequency of the uncomfortable conversation where a designer explains why a stakeholder's well-intentioned edit needs to be undone before the campaign can ship.