Feedback at a distance has to be more frequent and more specific than feedback in an office, because none of it arrives incidentally.
What is missing
In an office a person picks up dozens of small signals a day: a glance at a screen, an overheard conversation, somebody's expression when a document arrives. Remotely, none of that exists, and its absence is filled by assumption.
The assumption is usually negative. Silence after submitting work reads as dissatisfaction, and a person receiving silence for a fortnight concludes something is wrong.
The first correction
Handled quickly, specifically and without weight, it establishes that problems get discussed and nothing terrible happens. Handled late, or with more gravity than it deserves, it teaches the opposite.
There is no second chance at this. Whatever happens the first time something comes back wrong sets the pattern, and the pattern is either a year of candour or a year of concealment.
Specific rather than general
Not "this is good". Which part, and why, in a sentence. General praise reads as filler and teaches nothing, and people can tell.
The same for correction: the step that was wrong, what it should have been, and whether the procedure needs changing. That last question turns a correction into an improvement and moves the blame from the person to the document, which is usually where it belongs.
Written and spoken
Write the substance so it can be reread, and say it so the tone is audible. A written correction alone is easy to read as colder than intended; a spoken one alone is remembered inaccurately by both parties.
The line between you and the provider
Day-to-day feedback about the work is yours. Formal performance management, discipline and anything that could affect employment is the provider's, because they are the employer.
Getting this wrong in either direction causes trouble. A client who routes ordinary corrections through a supervisor turns a small thing into a formal one and damages the working relationship. A client who conducts a disciplinary conversation directly is doing something they have no standing to do and may be creating a problem under Philippine employment law.
The rule: talk to the person about the work, talk to the provider about patterns.
When to involve the supervisor
When the same problem recurs after being raised twice. When the issue is attendance, conduct or wellbeing rather than output. And when you are considering whether the arrangement is working, which is a conversation to have with the provider before it is a conclusion.
Asking for feedback on yourself
Two questions, monthly: what would make your job easier, and what am I doing that wastes your time.
The second is uncomfortable and produces the most useful answers. In most arrangements the honest reply concerns unclear briefs, slow responses to blockers, or work arriving late in the Philippine day, and all three are yours to fix.
Expect nothing useful the first two times you ask. The answers arrive once somebody believes the question is genuine, which takes a few months and is worth waiting for.
Recognition
Say when something was done well, in front of the supervisor occasionally, and mean it. It costs nothing, it is remembered, and in an arrangement where the person's employer and their work are separate it is one of the few things only you can supply.
Frequency
Something specific every week for the first two months, then something specific every fortnight. Less than monthly is not a feedback relationship, it is an annual review with extra steps.
Correcting the same thing twice
If a correction has not stuck after two attempts, the problem is almost never that the person did not listen. It is that the instruction was ambiguous, the procedure is wrong, or something in the work makes the correct behaviour difficult.
Ask what makes it hard. The answer is usually immediate and usually something you can fix.