The national target requires a portfolio of utilised conversion capacity

The inherited register records a Camtext SA announcement dated 12 November 2025, with reported investment of US$300 million, also stated as XAF 180 billion. These are announcement values in grade-C ledger evidence, not independently reconciled costs, financed amounts or disbursements. This chapter neither derives an exchange rate from them nor treats either amount as an equipment budget for closing the national processing requirement.[R09]

The related entry reports annual processing capacity of 12,000 tonnes and an optimal-capacity horizon around 2033. The ledger does not establish a comparable domestic lint intake boundary or present a verified commissioning record. The reported capacity therefore remains contingent. It cannot be counted as operating intake or assumed to be fully available by the policy target date.[R10][S34]

The evidence-status table in Exhibit 12 deliberately leaves the qualifying operating contribution unresolved. An unresolved contribution is not a zero-output finding. It is a request for the documents needed to place a project into the national balance.

For illustration only, if the reported 12,000 tonnes were confirmed as annual nameplate domestic lint intake, then 70 percent utilisation over a full operating year would imply 8,400 tonnes of actual intake. That conditional calculation does not resolve what the announcement means. If the reported quantity instead refers to fabric or another output stage, a different conversion model would be required. The assumption must be verified before this quantity enters any portfolio total.[R10]

GFT proposes requesting the material specification, rating basis, ownership and commissioning documents, followed by operating records and evidence of domestic origin. Where reported output is blended, the domestic cotton content needs its own balance. Where production is subcontracted, intake should be attributed to the qualifying domestic conversion event rather than counted again at the contracting entity. These are accounting safeguards, not claims about the announced project's actual arrangements.

A large announced project may still be strategically useful without being eligible for the current operating total. It may establish a future demand case or a dependency to monitor. The register should preserve those possibilities while keeping them separate from realised intake. This avoids treating an uncertain announcement as either completed industrial capacity or evidence that the project has failed.

The proposed treatment is symmetrical. If evidence later confirms commissioned capacity and accepted production, the register should admit the documented contribution without waiting for an entirely new national study. If an earlier assumption proves wrong, the register should reduce or defer the contribution and explain why. Evidence status is useful only if it changes decisions in both directions. A permanent caution label would be as misleading as permanently counting an announcement as completed output.

GFT proposes treating qualifying lint intake as a necessary physical measure alongside commercial, social and resource outcomes. A higher processing share can coexist with rejected products, unpaid invoices or losses. The inference is that conversion alone cannot demonstrate retained value. The historical value-chain analysis distinguishes value added and profitability from physical production, and reports divergent outcomes across actors. That historical evidence supports examining distribution and viability rather than treating every additional processed tonne as an economic gain.[S03]

A proposed value measure should state its consolidation boundary. Factory turnover is not automatically domestic value added, and sales between domestic stages should not be added repeatedly as national benefit. The portfolio should also show whether higher intake can be sustained through the procurement and payment cycle. Detailed financing belongs in the financial model; the national scorecard needs enough information to identify when physical expansion is outrunning its ability to fund continued operation.

GFT recommends pairing the volume measure with accepted output, repeat orders and collections against agreed terms. These measures answer different questions. Acceptance tests whether the product meets the intended specification. Repeat orders test whether demand persists. Collection tests whether the transaction funds the next cycle. A favourable result in any category should not erase a failure in another. The programme authority should agree decision thresholds before reviewing results, using product and contract evidence rather than generic promises.

Employment should likewise retain its quality dimension. The ILO's sector brief identifies poor working conditions, low wages, gender inequality and skills needs as issues for textile and clothing policy. GFT therefore proposes recording verified paid employment alongside safety, training and worker-treatment evidence. Announced jobs and operating jobs should remain distinct; neither should become an unsupported claim of decent work.[S13]

Resource performance needs a defined process boundary and an accepted-output denominator. IFC's resource-efficiency and pollution-prevention standard addresses sustainable resource use and pollution reduction. GFT infers that an increase in domestic processing does not, by itself, establish environmental improvement. Resource intensity should be read alongside absolute consumption and pollution performance, with the relevant site evidence retained. No generic reduction is assumed for the scenarios in this chapter.[S26]

A proposed resilience review should test how the portfolio behaves when its common assumptions fail together. If projects share a utility connection, feedstock supplier or major customer, nominal diversification across sites may provide little protection. The programme team should identify substitute supply or sales routes and the conditions under which intake must be reduced. A documented response to a shared constraint is more useful than a larger nominal capacity total whose projects all depend on the same unresolved service.

The practical output is a scenario register that a national programme team can revise as evidence arrives. It can supply normalised assumptions to the proposed cotton-value-flow and ramp-planner interfaces without implying those tools are built or validated. It should show the selected denominator, required intake, comparable project contribution, unresolved balance and the next evidence needed. This chapter establishes that calculation discipline; it does not replace investment appraisal, product qualification or legal interpretation. It is not investment, legal or tax advice.