Every manuscript starts with a simple question: how do you want to work through it? Some writers need a weekly check-in to stay honest. Others prefer to hand over a messy draft and get back a marked-up document with margin notes. Neither approach is wrong, but they demand different things from you and from the person helping you.
The first thing to settle is the pace. A full-manuscript edit runs on a different rhythm than a chapter-by-chapter critique. If you are still reshaping the plot, a slow pass that lets you revise between sessions will serve you better than a single sweep that arrives after you have already changed the ending. Be honest about where you are in the process before you commit to a timeline.
Next, think about how much feedback you can actually absorb. A dense editorial letter with forty pages of notes is valuable, but only if you have the time to work through it. If you are squeezing writing into evenings and weekends, a shorter list of priorities might move you further. The goal is not to collect the most feedback; it is to apply the feedback you can act on.
Finally, consider the format of the sessions themselves. Live calls work well for brainstorming a stuck scene or talking through a structural problem. Written notes are better for line-level polish and for keeping a record you can return to. Many writers find a mix of both keeps momentum without turning every chapter into a meeting. Choose the shape that matches your working style, not the one that sounds most impressive.