Planning a traceable 48-shirt graphic apparel run case

What to take away

A neighborhood arts program ordered 48 unisex jersey shirts with a two-color front graphic. The size mix covered S through 2XL, split evenly between natural and navy. The shirts would be sold at one event and through the program's online store.

All names, quantities, measurements, settings, costs, approvals, and defects below are invented for instruction.

Freeze the order

The team created order SC-29101 and approved this matrix:

The shop ordered four extra blanks, one M and one L in each color. The agreement said unused clean blanks remained the customer's property, while misprints caused by the shop would not count toward delivery.

The product specification named supplier style, fiber disclosure, garment colors, size labels, target dimensions, front-center datum, print width of 244 mm, placement of 76 mm below the collar seam, and a 6 mm placement tolerance.

Control artwork and permission

The program supplied an original illustration and a signed license authorizing 52 prints on shirts for its event and store. The shop could photograph two production samples for its private records but could not sell overruns or display the art publicly.

No worker could accept an emailed replacement without a formal revision. That rule prevented a late social-media version of the design from entering production.

Qualify both garment colors

Receiving separated natural and navy by carton, size, and supplier lot. A sample from each color was checked for label, fiber statement, measurements, seam twist, visible defects, surface, and print position.

The navy required a white underbase for the approved opacity. The natural shirt did not. The team therefore treated color as two qualified process variants rather than one setup with a garment swap.

The FTC's textile-labeling guide says covered products generally need fiber content, country of origin, and manufacturer, importer, or dealer identity. It describes records that trace raw material to finished product.

The team used the federal textile-labeling overview to flag U.S. review questions. A qualified reviewer still had to determine coverage and the correct final labels for this fictional order.

Approve two physical proofs

The shop printed one M natural proof and one M navy proof through the planned screens, inks, flash, and final cure. After cooling, the team checked dimensions, placement, color, opacity, registration, edge quality, hand, scorch, contamination, and the shop's qualified cure evidence.

The customer approved natural proof N-P01 and navy proof D-P01. Photographs and measurements entered the job file; the physical shirts were marked as samples and excluded from the 48 saleable units.

The team also recorded a decoration-specific care statement after reviewing the garment and ink system together. No one copied the blank's care label into the online listing without assessing the added print.

Run by numbered ranges

The shop printed natural first, sizes ascending, then cleaned and verified the setup before navy. Garments were logged by sequential production positions rather than serialized labels:

At each check, the operator recorded screen and ink IDs, print and flash settings, indicated cure condition, placement, registration, opacity, and surface result. A rack card kept accepted and held pieces separated.

Contain an opacity drift

At D16, the navy print passed. During later inspection, production position D19 showed a thinner white underbase at the lower edge. The team stopped and held D17 through D24 because D16 was the last verified good check.

The investigation found that ink had begun to dry in part of the underbase image after a pause. The screen was cleaned through the approved method, ink condition was restored, and a new first-off passed. Every held shirt received the defined opacity and surface inspection. D17 and D18 passed; D19 and D20 failed and were rejected; D21 through D24 passed.

Two extra navy blanks replaced the rejects. They were recorded as D25 and D26 and inspected individually.

Validate care and labeling

The FTC's care-label guidance says covered manufacturers and importers need a reasonable basis for care instructions. They must warn against procedures consumers may assume are safe when those procedures harm the product.

The case used that care-label substantiation guidance to review the decorated garment as a whole, not as proof one care statement fits every ink and blank.

The final online and packing records used the approved fiber, origin, dealer-identity, size, and care information after qualified review. The artwork license quantity also appeared in the production closeout.

Reconcile and release

The count closed as follows:

52 blanks received
- 2 approved proofs
- 2 rejected navy shirts
- 48 saleable shirts shipped
= 0 unexplained units

The two rejected shirts were permanently marked and disposed of under the license terms. The customer received 48 saleable garments, packing by size and color, a count sheet, care information, and shipment tracking.

The retained file included brief, quote, license, blank receiving, artwork A03, two proofs, traveler, process checks, opacity hold, inspection, rejects, labels, care basis, packing, shipping, and customer receipt.

Common questions

Why were two physical proofs required?

The garment colors used different underbase conditions and produced different visible results. Each variant needed its own approved reference.

Why were D17 through D24 held?

D16 was the last documented good check. Every later unit could have been affected until inspection established otherwise.

Why were the proof shirts not counted in the 48?

The agreement defined them as approval samples. Saleable quantity and sample quantity were separate.

Could rejected licensed shirts be donated?

Only if the rights holder and contract allowed it. Here, the license prohibited unauthorized distribution, so the rejects were controlled and disposed of.