Research libraryTraceable by Design
Chapter 04 of 14 · Part II · Draft web edition
A shipment is traceable only when dispatch and receipt refer to the same material and discrepancies remain visible.
The cloth is woven from this chapter's 4 exhibits: each weft is one exhibit's own data, normalised; each warp group is a section. The probe reads the exhibit's own value where it crosses. Procedural visualisation, not a measurement.
Read-out
Illustrative GFT handover procedure using distinct shipping and receiving observations, scheme-specific counterparty acknowledgement as an example, and a retained mismatch branch. It is a proposed control design, not a record of transit time or an implemented integration.
Unit: . Status: illustrative. Sources: S09, S10, S11. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Overture · 1 min
A custody transfer closes only when the sender's dispatch observation and the receiver's independent receipt observation match the same material, quantity basis, parties, sites and transport reference. An invoice, a dispatched message or a carrier scan cannot close that gap on its own. Green Future Tech Limited (GFT), Hong Kong SAR, therefore proposes a paired handover record: preserve both observations, compare them under explicit rules, and hold the affected claim whenever identity, evidence or quantity remains unresolved. The physical goods may move while their stronger provenance claim stays restricted.[S01][S03][S10][S11]
This chapter supplies the dispatch-receipt matching procedure and discrepancy decision tree for GFT's Cameroon textile programme. The authorised programme record covers feasibility study, performance-management system design and digital strategy. The controls below are proposed extensions for a pilot, not evidence of a running factory, certified supplier, completed integration or accepted customs outcome. All shipment identifiers, quantities and operating scenarios are illustrative. The chapter is not investment, legal or tax advice.
4.1
A seller can issue an invoice before loading, a carrier can depart before the buyer inspects the goods, and a warehouse can receive material while its commercial owner remains unchanged. These are related but distinct occurrences. GS1's Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) Release 2.0 records completed visibility events, while its Core Business Vocabulary (CBV) gives shared meanings to business steps such as shipping and receiving. A purchase-order reference can connect those observations to a commercial agreement, but it does not turn either observation into the other.[S10][S11]
The minimum handover therefore contains two signed observations linked by one proposed transfer identifier. The dispatch side states what the sender released. The receipt side states what the receiver actually observed. Neither side should be copied silently into the other. Where a value was not observed, the record says UNKNOWN rather than inheriting a convenient value from the dispatch advice. EPCIS distinguishes event time from the business context in which an identifier was read, so the proposed record also separates the physical event time from later data entry and transmission.[S10][S11]
| Field group | Dispatch observation | Receipt observation | Matching rule for the proposed pilot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer | Transfer ID, shipment reference, order reference | Same references, or a documented crosswalk | One transfer ID links both records; an unmatched reference creates an exception.[S10] |
| Parties and sites | Sender, releasing custodian, dispatch site, carrier | Receiver, accepting custodian, receiving site, carrier | Legal owner, physical custodian and evidence issuer remain separate fields.[S01][S11] |
| Material | Lot or bale identifiers, material class, claim class, package count | Identifiers and classes actually read or inspected | Every claimed identifier must resolve; unexpected identifiers are added, not ignored.[S03][S06] |
| Quantity | Net mass, unit, moisture basis, tare treatment, scale ID | Independently observed net mass and the same basis fields | Compare only compatible bases; retain both original values after correction.[S03][S06] |
| Time and transport | Event time, recording time, vehicle or container, seal reference | Arrival and inspection times, vehicle or container, seal observation | Late entry remains visible; a seal reference is evidence to inspect, not proof of origin.[S06][S10] |
| Evidence | Delivery note, weigh slip, packing list, claim evidence pointers | Received documents, exception images or files, reviewer reference | Each evidence item has an issuer, scope and relation to the transfer.[S03][S10] |
The Aid by Trade Foundation's June 2025 Transparency Standard provides a scheme-specific example of the documentary boundary. Its purchase and sales provisions call for identified parties, product descriptions, unique product and transaction references, quantities, dates and transport details. Its receiving provisions call for inspection of accompanying documents against the material received. Those requirements should be applied only where that scheme and edition govern the claim, not treated as a universal template for every cotton movement.[S06]
The Sustainable Cotton Tracker (SCOT) FAQ supplies another bounded example. It distinguishes tracking from commercial ordering and describes counterparty acknowledgement of transactions entered by a seller. This supports the design principle that a commercial order and a custody confirmation are different records. It does not establish that SCOT is required for this programme, that any proposed supplier participates, or that its workflow applies under other schemes.[S09]
GFT's proposed matching procedure has seven operational steps:
EXPECTED; this is a proposed workflow state, not a claim that goods have arrived.[S10][S11]RECEIVED, pending any unrelated quality or assurance holds. A mismatch enters DISPUTED; uncertain conformity or unresolved identity enters QUARANTINED. These local states require a documented crosswalk before anyone maps them to a partner vocabulary.[S06][S11]Exhibit 16 shows the proposed pairing and the branch that preserves a mismatch instead of forcing closure.[S09][S10][S11]
The important output of Exhibit 16 is not a green shipment icon. It is a reviewable pair of observations and an outcome with an owner. A RECEIVED state confirms only the defined receipt checks. It does not prove farm origin, product quality, legal conformity or the truth of every document attached to the shipment. Those propositions retain their own evidence requirements.[S01][S03]
4.4
Trader as owner
Trader as owner: Direct physical observation responsibility 2, Commercial ownership decision authority 9. Quadrant: Commercial principals · illustrative
Buyer as owner
Buyer as owner: Direct physical observation responsibility 3, Commercial ownership decision authority 8. Quadrant: Commercial principals · illustrative
Warehouse custodian
Warehouse custodian: Direct physical observation responsibility 9, Commercial ownership decision authority 1. Quadrant: Physical custodians · illustrative
Toll processor
Toll processor: Direct physical observation responsibility 9, Commercial ownership decision authority 3. Quadrant: Physical custodians · illustrative
Carrier
Carrier: Direct physical observation responsibility 7, Commercial ownership decision authority 1. Quadrant: Physical custodians · illustrative
Scheme counterparty
Scheme counterparty: Direct physical observation responsibility 3, Commercial ownership decision authority 5. Quadrant: Commercial principals · illustrative
The method behind it: GFT note.
Illustrative role map. Horizontal position represents the role's typical direct responsibility for physical observation in the hypothetical arrangements; vertical position represents its typical authority over the commercial ownership decision. Coordinates are qualitative teaching positions, not measured scores, legal determinations or universal role definitions.
Unit: illustrative qualitative index (0 to 10). Status: illustrative. Sources: S01, S09, S10. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
4.4 · the bodyExhibit 17 above; its figures are illustrative where marked.
Chain-of-custody design must identify who controlled the material and who observed the transfer, not merely who bought or sold it. ISO 22095's public abstract presents a generic framework for custody across materials and products, while warning that a custody system alone does not establish production characteristics or verify a product claim. GFT applies that distinction by recording commercial owner, physical custodian, transport provider and evidence issuer as separate roles. The paid ISO text was not opened, so this chapter does not claim clause-level ISO conformity.[S01]
Consider an illustrative trader selling lint to a spinner while the bales remain in a third-party warehouse. Ownership may change on the contract date, but no bale moves. Later, the warehouse releases the bales to a carrier for delivery. The trader can issue the invoice, yet only the warehouse can attest to the physical removal it observed, and only the carrier can attest to what it accepted for transport. The receiving spinner then observes arrival. Combining all four assertions into one seller event would erase the people and sites whose evidence a reviewer needs.[S01][S10][S11]
| Illustrative arrangement | Commercial event | Physical event that still needs evidence | Required handover consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party storage | Trader sells material to buyer | Warehouse moves stock between locations or releases it to a carrier | Warehouse signs the observed move; contract reference alone cannot establish the location change.[S10] |
| Consignment stock | Supplier retains the agreed ownership position while buyer holds stock | Buyer receives, stores and later draws material | Record possession and observation roles separately from the contract's ownership clause.[S01][S11] |
| Toll processing | Principal supplies material and purchases a processing service | Subcontractor receives, converts and returns material | Pair both handovers and link the processor's input-output record; do not infer a sale to the processor.[S06][S10] |
| Direct delivery to a subcontractor | Buyer purchases from a seller but nominates another receiving site | Seller dispatches and subcontractor receives | Capture the nominated receiver and actual site, not just the buyer's registered address.[S06][S11] |
Exhibit 17 places illustrative roles on two qualitative dimensions: authority over the commercial ownership decision and responsibility for the physical observation. The coordinates make the role distinction visible; they are not performance scores or findings about actual organisations.[S01][S09][S10]
A reviewer should use Exhibit 17 to ask whether each required assertion has a competent issuer. A trader's signed statement may support its own commercial transaction, but not a warehouse movement it did not observe. A warehouse record may establish a location and lot list, but not the legal validity of the sale. A scheme acknowledgement can confirm that counterparties used a specified workflow, but not replace all underlying dispatch and receipt evidence.[S01][S06][S09]
4.7
Storage is not a pause in traceability. It is a period during which labels can be damaged, lots can move, eligible and ineligible materials can share equipment, and records can drift away from physical stock. The June 2025 Aid by Trade Foundation standard requires identification to be maintained during storage and handling under its HIP provisions. It describes physical and temporal segregation, clear labelling or marking, and accompanying storage documents that identify relevant bales or lots. These are scheme- and edition-specific controls to map where applicable, not a declaration that every warehouse follows them.[S06]
GFT's proposed warehouse record therefore links each material identifier to a site, storage location, claim class and custody state. A move creates a new observation rather than an edit that leaves only the latest aisle. The record retains the prior location, destination, event time, responsible custodian, authorising instruction and any associated cleaning or release evidence. EPCIS location fields and business-step vocabulary can carry parts of that history, while the material's evidence state remains a separate application decision.[S10][S11]
A useful location register answers four questions without consulting a spreadsheet maintained elsewhere:
The physical arrangement must make those answers credible. Dedicated areas can separate eligible from non-eligible stock. Temporal separation can use a defined campaign, a line-clearance check and a documented release before another material class enters. Under the opened CmiA edition, machinery must be free of non-claimed material before claimed material is processed, and precautions are needed against unintentional mixing. GFT would translate that principle into site instructions only after the applicable scheme, equipment and operating conditions have been confirmed.[S06]
A labelled aisle is a useful signal, but it is not a complete control. If bales can be moved without an identifier scan, written transfer or accountable sign-off, the location register can remain reassuring while becoming false. Likewise, replacing a damaged tag without preserving the original identifier can break the chain even where the replacement is physically correct. The proposed exception record links the old and new identifiers, the reason for replacement, the evidence inspected and the reviewer who authorised it.[S03][S06][S10]
Transport extends the same boundary beyond the warehouse. The opened CmiA standard calls for suitable packaging, containers or vehicles so that substitution or mixing cannot occur without tampering or damage. It also calls for sales and transport documents that identify corresponding products or materials. GFT therefore proposes recording package condition, vehicle or container reference, seal reference where used, exceptions observed at loading and the receiver's corresponding inspection. A seal number supports a physical check; it does not establish cotton origin or prove that every listed bale is present.[S06]
Interlude · the cloth half-woven
Woven: sections 4.0 to 4.7Still to weave: 4.10 to 4.16
4.10
Related · chapter 069 paragraphs step it
Read-out
Illustrative arithmetic from the base closing balance of 80 kg. Missing receipt 200: model -120, residual +200, no claim allocation. Duplicate receipt 200: model 280, residual -200, duplicate eligibility 200. Duplicate dispatch 150: model -70, residual +150, duplicate claim 150. Late return 60: model 20, residual +60, no claim allocation. Wrong conversion on 900 eligible kg: 900 x (0.80 - 0.70) = 90 kg unsupported, physical residual 0; both factors are hypothetical. Recovery misclassification: 100 kg incorrectly admitted, physical residual 0. No factor or effect is a scheme benchmark.
Unit: kg, illustrative residual and unsupported claim quantity. Status: illustrative. Sources: S03, S06, S10. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗Two scales can produce different observations without either being dishonest, and two documents can report the same nominal mass while using different tare or moisture conventions. The comparison must therefore record unit, gross or net status, packaging treatment, moisture basis, scale identity, observation time and any conversion formula. Textile Exchange's Content Claim Standard overview calls for documentation of receiving, processing and transfer, together with volume reconciliation. The CmiA edition likewise requires receiving documents to be checked against description, quantity, quality, source and blend or mix percentage.[S03][S06]
GFT's comparison routine begins with the original observations. In the illustrative worked case, 1,000 kg net at dispatch and 990 kg net at receipt are comparable only if both net values use compatible packaging and moisture bases. If one document reports gross mass, the routine cannot silently subtract an assumed bale or wrapping weight. It requests the actual tare observation or marks the comparison BASIS_UNKNOWN. Any unit conversion states its input, operation, output unit and rounding. These are proposed controls, not an assumed industry tolerance.[S03][S06]
Measurement uncertainty and administrative discrepancy must also remain separate. Measurement uncertainty concerns the observations and instruments. Administrative discrepancy includes a missing delivery line, a transposed identifier, an unrecorded return or an incompatible unit. A numerical match can hide an administrative error, while a numerical mismatch can have a documented physical explanation. Neither condition should be resolved by changing the receiver's mass to equal the sender's.[S03][S10]
The sign convention must be declared before interpretation. This chapter uses receipt minus dispatch for the transfer difference. A negative result means less mass was observed at receipt on the stated basis. It does not, by itself, establish physical loss, theft, moisture change or scale error. Investigation uses contemporaneous evidence such as weigh slips, packaging observations, vehicle inspection, returns and instrument records. The original pair remains intact throughout that review.[S03][S06][S10]
Exhibit 18 displays the worked net-mass pair without hiding the difference inside a single reconciled value.[S03][S06]
The single comparison in Exhibit 18 is enough to trigger review under this illustrative procedure, but not enough to determine its cause or materiality. The organisation must define investigation and escalation thresholds from the governing scheme, instrument performance, material behaviour and observed operating variation. The opened CmiA edition contains its own volume-deviation investigation rule, but that scheme-specific rule must not be relabelled as a general receiving tolerance or applied automatically to a different claim.[S06]
A discrepancy log should carry the original dispatch and receipt event IDs, difference and basis, evidence requested, responsible investigator, due review point, decision and claim effect. Where a correction is appropriate, EPCIS 2.0 provides error-declaration concepts for declaring an earlier event erroneous and linking corrective information. GFT would use that structure to retain history, while treating the business acceptance of the correction as a separate review.[S10]
A signed reconciliation adds evidence rather than replacing the underlying records. It states what was agreed, what remains uncertain and who authorised release. The quantity ledger records each physical implication once. The quantity-reconciliation chapter develops the full stock and eligible-claim accounts.[S03][S06]
4.13
Read-out
Illustrative GFT decision rule. A No at any gate holds the affected claim and creates a remediation record. Independent acceptance covers only the reviewed scope and evidence cut-off. This is not a completed implementation or certification decision.
Unit: illustrative decision sequence. Status: illustrative. Sources: S03, S06, S10, S14, S27. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗4.13 · Introduction
Exhibit 62, chapter 14: Claim bounded
4.14 · The state model must distinguish arrival from acceptance
A handover needs states that describe evidence, not just the location of a truck.
Exhibit 62, chapter 14: Claim bounded
4.15 · Claim release needs a measurable queue, not an improvised chase
The release reviewer should work from an exception queue with explicit denominators and observation sources.
Exhibit 62, chapter 14: Evidence accessible
4.13 · the bodyThe film above follows these sub-steps.
A handover needs states that describe evidence, not just the location of a truck. GFT proposes EXPECTED for a dispatch-linked transfer awaiting receipt, RECEIVED for a completed observation with no open handover mismatch, DISPUTED for a counterparty or documentary disagreement, QUARANTINED for material whose affected claim must not be released, and RELEASED for an authorised claim decision. These are local workflow labels. CBV supplies shared business steps and dispositions, but a partner crosswalk must verify the exact meaning before treating any local label as a standard equivalent.[S11]
The states are not necessarily sequential for every attribute. A lot may be physically received and immediately quarantined for a provenance question. Its quality review may continue while its scheme claim remains blocked. A disputed commercial document may coexist with a complete physical receipt. Recording one generic accepted flag would conceal those distinctions and could make an unresolved handover appear to support a public origin statement.[S01][S03][S06]
The discrepancy decision tree begins with material identity, because quantity arithmetic cannot repair an unknown lot:
UNKNOWN, and quarantine the dependent claim. Do not assign the expected lot merely because the package count matches.[S03][S06]BASIS_UNKNOWN visible rather than importing a standard deduction.[S03]Exhibit 19 applies that decision tree to illustrative exceptions. Each row carries a status, accountable role, evidence requirement and release consequence so that closure means a reviewable decision rather than a disappeared warning.[S06][S10][S11]
The cases in Exhibit 19 show why deletion is not correction. A duplicate message should not double the dispatched quantity, but removing all copies from the audit trail would also destroy evidence of the ingestion defect. EPCIS error declarations allow an erroneous event to be identified with corrective references. The proposed operational log additionally records who reviewed the business effect and whether any claim or stock allocation changed.[S03][S10]
The release reviewer should work from an exception queue with explicit denominators and observation sources. GFT proposes four pilot measures, each owned by the traceability lead and reviewed weekly during the bounded pilot. These are measurement specifications, not reported performance. An empty queue caused by missing data is reported as UNKNOWN, never as a perfect result.
| Proposed measure | Numerator and denominator | Observation source | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unmatched handover share | Open or unresolved matched pairs divided by all handovers due for review | Dispatch-receipt register and exception log | Directs investigation capacity; unknown required records stay in the denominator with their status visible. |
| Receipt observation completeness | Required receipt fields populated from actual observation divided by required fields across due receipts | Signed receipt forms and field audit | Distinguishes a working capture procedure from copied dispatch data. |
| Exception closure evidence share | Closed exceptions with retained evidence and authorised decision divided by all closed exceptions | Exception log and linked evidence index | Prevents closure by deletion or unsupported supervisor override.[S10] |
| Restricted-claim propagation completeness | Affected downstream records correctly restricted divided by affected records identified through genealogy | Custody graph and claim-release register | Tests whether a handover hold reaches every dependent claim and no unrelated attribute.[S01][S03] |
An unresolved handover ultimately narrows what the buyer can receive. The evidence pack should show the matched pair, any open exception and the exact claim restriction. If the transfer cannot establish that the claimed material crossed the boundary, the public origin statement is withheld or narrowed to the remaining supported boundary. This does not prove that the original declaration was false. It records that the chain has not preserved enough evidence to repeat it.[S01][S03]
4.16
Related · chapter 0110 paragraphs step it
Read-out
Illustrative conceptual placement designed by GFT from S01, S02, S18 and S34. Coordinates place five product propositions by required upstream physical custody depth (x) and rule or verification specificity (y); positions are analytical categories, not empirical scores.
Unit: illustrative position (0 to 10 conceptual scale). Status: illustrative. Sources: S01, S02, S18, S34. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗A border crossing adds documents, parties and possible changes of custodian, but it does not change the matching principle. Material identifiers must remain linked to transport and receipt records, while each organisation records what it actually observed. The World Trade Organization defines rules of origin as criteria for determining a product's national source. That legal or customs determination is distinct from evidence that a particular bale or lot moved between two sites. The handover pack must not infer tariff preference or customs eligibility from a delivery note.[S18][S10]
For an illustrative cross-border shipment, the seller's dispatch, carrier acceptance, border-related references, any warehouse transfer and final receipt should share a transfer crosswalk. Each document keeps its issuer and purpose. A customs reference can identify a declaration; a packing list can identify packages; a weigh slip can support a quantity observation. None should be treated as universal proof of every other field. Applicable origin analysis belongs with the relevant legal and trade review, not with an automatic passport rule.[S18][S03]
Weak connectivity creates a different risk: the physical event may be valid but its digital message may arrive late, twice or out of order. EPCIS event data can preserve event time and business context, while application records can separately preserve recording time. GFT's proposed offline procedure uses pre-issued transfer and event identifiers, protected local storage and a signed paper or local electronic fallback. A later upload carries the original identifiers rather than creating a new business event at the time of reconnection.[S10][S11]
Before departure, the sending custodian downloads the minimum transfer record, authorised material list and evidence references needed to work locally. The receiver obtains the expected transfer identifier where the communication channel permits. If no expectation arrives, the receiver still captures an independent observation and marks the transfer UNMATCHED, rather than reconstructing the expected record from memory. These are proposed pilot controls whose usability and security still require testing.[S03][S10]
At reconnection, four reconciliations are required:
Conflict handling should prefer evidence over recency. If two records share an event identifier but carry different material IDs or quantities, the system quarantines the conflict and retains both payloads, their senders and their recording times. If two different event identifiers describe what may be one physical dispatch, a reviewer compares source documents before merging any operational view. The merge creates a resolution record; it does not delete either original assertion.[S10]
The pilot should rehearse a delayed dispatch message, a duplicated receipt upload, an out-of-order return and an offline identifier replacement. Each case needs expected physical stock, expected claim status and independently prepared source records for comparison. Success means that another reviewer can reconstruct the handover, the quantities and the claim decision after reconnection. It does not mean that every message reached a server.[S03][S10]
The rehearsal should also test controlled file exchange. A signed export carries transfer identifiers, event times, material references, evidence pointers and correction links; the importer records conversions and repeats matching. Companion papers wp07 and wp18 own infrastructure design, which must preserve custody meaning and restricted release during recovery.[S10][S11]
Check the record
Every knot is a source this chapter cites; select one to read its record, or filter the register by grade. Publication dates and inherited-source limits stay explicit. Read the paper's full evidence summary.
8 sources · 152 citation marks on this pageMost cited: S10, 36 times
Grade AGrade BGrade CKnot size: citations on this page
All 8 records shown
c04-S01 · Grade A
ISO 22095:2020: Chain of custody, General terminology and models
This document is applicable to all materials and products.
2020. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S02 · Grade B
Chain of Custody Models and Definitions Guidance
Chain of custody models enable the transfer of materials and associated attributes through certified supply chains.
2025. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S03 · Grade B
The Content Claim Standard
Verified tracking of certified materials enables companies to make credible, substantiated claims about the certified content of their products.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S06 · Grade B
Transparency Standard, Version 1.0
However, this conversion is irreversible and final.
2025. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S09 · Grade B
SCOT FAQ
No, the Sustainable Cotton Tracker (SCOT) is not an order system.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S10 · Grade A
EPCIS Standard, Release 2.0
The name EPCIS reflects the origins of this effort in the development of the Electronic Product Code (EPC).
2022. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S11 · Grade A
Core Business Vocabulary Standard, Release 2.0
Vocabularies are used extensively within EPCIS to model conceptual, physical, and digital entities that exist in the real world.
2022. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c04-S18 · Grade A
Technical Information on Rules of Origin
Rules of origin are the criteria needed to determine the national source of a product.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗Keep the thread · chapter 04 of 14
Move the shuttle along the rack to preview any chapter: its sections, exhibits and reading time. Draft web edition. This research is not investment, legal or tax advice; illustrative models are not measured factory results.
The paper's rack · 14 boltsBolt length: reading time
01Part I: Claims must match the chain
GFT argues that provenance becomes useful when custody controls preserve the evidence behind a saleable claim.
02Part I: Claims must match the chain
Select the custody model by the attribute that must survive, then design operations to maintain that attribute.
03Part I: Claims must match the chain
An origin claim needs a defined producer boundary and a documented link from receipts to ginned fibre.
04Part II: Every transformation needs a record
A shipment is traceable only when dispatch and receipt refer to the same material and discrepancies remain visible.
05Part II: Every transformation needs a record
Each production step must preserve enough input-output linkage to support the claim carried by its outputs.
06Part II: Every transformation needs a record
Physical stock, processing yield and eligible claims need related but separate accounts.
07Part II: Every transformation needs a record
Assurance is credible when its issuer, scope, validity and sampling limitations remain attached to the claim.
08Part III: Passports must preserve evidence
Interoperability requires common semantics, stable identifiers and a tested way to exchange corrections.
09Part III: Passports must preserve evidence
A useful passport identifies its product, states who makes each claim and reveals the limits of the supporting evidence. Proposed fields must remain distinct from future legal requirements.
10Part III: Passports must preserve evidence
Cryptography can preserve an assertion and identify its signing authority, but accepting a textile claim still requires physical evidence and an explicit trust policy.
11Part III: Passports must preserve evidence
A system survives only if responsibilities, exceptions, privacy and constrained connectivity are part of ordinary work.
12Part IV: Scale follows demonstrated control
Compare the cost of producing admissible evidence with bounded benefits rather than an assumed premium.
13Part IV: Scale follows demonstrated control
Pilot success requires adverse cases, reproducible evidence and independently reviewed release decisions.
14Part IV: Scale follows demonstrated control
GFT recommends a staged programme in which every expansion follows demonstrated control of evidence, quantities and disclosure.