Two questions are hiding inside that one. Is there a copy in the drive, which a filename search answers in a minute, and is that copy the master, which only the file itself can answer. In most teams the drive holds a web export, because the export is what got shared for approval and the master stayed wherever the export was made. Open the file and read its actual properties: pixel dimensions, codec and container, and whether the audio arrived as separate tracks or one mix. If those do not match what the delivery spec asked for, you are holding a copy, and the master belongs to a person rather than a folder.
Filenames lie, the file does not
A file called final_v3_HIGHRES is evidence of what someone hoped, not of what was saved. The dimensions on their own are not proof either, because a compressed source re-exported at large dimensions is still compressed, and the second pass adds its own losses. What separates a master from a viewing copy is the combination: the delivered frame size, a codec meant for editing or for delivery rather than for streaming, audio that arrives as usable tracks, and the presence of the things only a master has. A textless version, a version without the burned-in subtitles, and the graphics as separate elements are all signs you have the real thing.
If the drive only has an export, where the master usually sits
The usual holder is whoever did the export, which means the editor's or the agency's production storage. Next is the project archive, if anyone made one at the end of the job. After that come the places that keep copies for their own purposes: review and approval uploads, which are exports as well, and backup snapshots of a machine that has since been replaced. Original camera footage is a separate question again, and having it does not mean you can reproduce the cut, since the grade, the mix, and the graphics were decisions made in a project file. The wider version of this hunt is in the search for a video nobody can locate at all.
Why searching by content finds the video but not the version
Searching by what happens in the footage, which is what Vivu does inside a single project, tells you which video and which stretch of it, and nothing about which copy you are looking at. In our own runs, a broad pass came back as candidate videos to open and check yourself rather than a verdict. Resolution, codec and audio layout stay a property of the file, so version questions are settled by inspecting the file, no matter how you found it.
What to ask for so this stops recurring
Close every project with a short delivery list rather than a folder of whatever got sent last. The master in the agreed spec, a textless version, the caption file, the project with its media if you paid for that, and a plain-language note saying what is in the video and when it was shot. Then name one person who confirms those arrived. This is the part that separates an archive from a pile, and how teams normally structure it is covered in the way marketing teams keep masters and review copies apart.
When the web copy is good enough
Often. For internal reuse, a pitch deck, social, or a reference in a brief, a compressed export does the job and nobody will notice. The copy stops being adequate when the video gets projected large, goes out for broadcast, needs a new grade, or gets recut with material shot at full quality. Ask what the requester is doing with it before starting a hunt for the master, because the honest answer is frequently that they do not need it.
Deciding what "we have it" should mean
The reason this question comes back is that "we have the video" is ambiguous, and the ambiguity only shows up at the worst moment, when something is due. Pick a definition and apply it: you have a video when the master, a viewing copy, and a note about its contents are in the same place and somebody owns it. Anything short of that is a copy you are lucky to still have. Checking your last three projects against that definition tells you whether this was a one-off or a habit, and the habit is the thing worth fixing.
FAQ
How can I tell if a video file is the original or a compressed export?
Read the file's properties rather than its name. Look at frame size, the codec and container, the data rate, and how the audio is arranged, then compare those against what the project was supposed to deliver. A streaming-oriented codec with a single stereo mix is almost always a viewing copy, while editing-oriented codecs and separate audio tracks point to a master. If a file has large dimensions but a low data rate, it was probably upscaled from something smaller.
What should we ask an agency to deliver so we don't lose the master?
Ask for the delivered master in the agreed specification, a textless version, the caption or subtitle file as a separate asset, and a short written note describing what the video contains and when it was shot. Agree where those go and who confirms receipt before the invoice is closed. Whether you also get the project file with its media is a commercial question, so raise it at contract time rather than two years later.
Can I upscale a web copy back to high resolution?
Not in the sense of recovering what was lost. Upscaling produces a larger image by inventing plausible detail, which can be acceptable for a background element or an internal edit, and which tends to show badly on faces, text, and anything projected large. If the use is a real delivery, the effort is better spent finding the master or reshooting the shot.
Is it worth keeping the original footage as well as the finished master?
It depends on whether you expect to recut. Keeping the master and a textless version covers reuse of the video as it exists, which is most requests. Keeping the raw footage is what lets you make something different from the same shoot, and it costs far more storage. A common middle path is keeping everything for the first year, then keeping only the masters, the textless versions, and the selected takes.