Research libraryTraceable by Design
Chapter 02 of 14 · Part I · Draft web edition
Select the custody model by the attribute that must survive, then design operations to maintain that attribute.
The cloth is woven from this chapter's 6 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 classification based on the opened custody guidance and scheme pages. X categories: 0 = one declared source, 1 = mixing within an eligible class, 2 = mixing with other material permitted by the model. Y categories: 0 = attribute tied to the physical batch, 1 = attribute allocated by quantity, 2 = attribute instrument transferred separately. Positions are not measured scores or scheme equivalence findings.
Unit: categorical position, not a performance score. Status: illustrative. Sources: S01, S02, S03, S07, S0202. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Overture · 1 min
A custody model should be selected from the attribute that must remain true at the point of sale, not from available software or a preferred label. If the buyer needs an individual source to remain identifiable, pooling that source with others destroys the required evidence even when every input is eligible. If the buyer instead needs a reconciled account of certified production, physical source identity may be unnecessary, but the resulting statement must not imply that particular certified fibres sit inside a particular garment. The chosen model therefore sets a ceiling on the claim before any database, certificate or passport is designed.[S01][S02][S0202]
GFT's answer is to write the intended proposition, its prohibited stronger interpretation and the applicable scheme edition before approving procurement. Operations then receives a physical control problem: keep sources apart, preserve a claimed class, maintain a known mixture, reconcile allocated quantities, or administer credits separately from goods. Commercial communication receives the corresponding language boundary. ISO's public abstract expressly warns that a chain of custody system alone neither specifies production characteristics nor verifies a product claim, so conformity cannot be inferred from the presence of tracking records.[S01]
2.1
A chain of custody transfers material and associated attributes under stated rules. It does not make every attribute travel in the same way. Physical identity asks which material units entered a defined output. Quantity allocation asks how much of a claimed attribute may be assigned to outputs under an accounting rule. Book-and-claim asks a third question: whether an attribute record may be transferred independently of the physical goods. These questions can share identifiers and documents, but their affirmative answers support different propositions.[S02][S0202]
The distinctions below are GFT's working design patterns drawn from ISEAL's guidance overview and explanatory article. They are not a substitute for the clauses of a selected standard. A scheme may narrow the eligible sources, impose a reconciliation period, restrict mixing, require a particular register or prohibit a consumer statement that the generic pattern seems to allow. The scheme edition, certification scope and claims policy must therefore be resolved before the model name enters a purchase order.[S02][S03]
Identity preservation retains a specified source. Material from that source remains distinguishable from other sources through the agreed boundary. A supportable illustrative statement is: "This yarn lot was produced from the identified bale group recorded in its transformation record." The overstatement is: "Every fibre in every garment can be traced to an individual farm," when the bale group itself pooled several producers or later transformation records do not preserve that granularity. Identity preservation is therefore about the declared source unit, not an automatic promise of farm-level resolution.[S02][S0202]
Segregation preserves a claimed class rather than one source. Eligible inputs may be combined while material outside the class is kept apart. A supportable illustrative statement is: "This fabric batch contains only inputs accepted under the named claimed class, subject to its scheme rules." The overstatement is: "This fabric comes from producer group A," when eligible inputs from groups A and B were mixed. The model can preserve country origin where every admitted input shares that origin, but it cannot preserve an attribute on which the admitted inputs differ.[S06][S0202]
Controlled blending preserves a known composition under a defined recipe. Eligible and other inputs are mixed according to controlled criteria, and the proportion is carried through the batch record. A supportable illustrative statement is: "This batch has the calculated claimed-input proportion shown in its approved composition record." The overstatement is: "All cotton in this batch is eligible," or any item-level percentage that ignores unequal distribution, process losses or the scheme's allocation method. The recipe must be reconciled with what was actually consumed, not merely copied from the purchase specification.[S02][S06]
Mass balance allocates an eligible quantity rather than identifying physical content. Eligible material may mix with other material while records control the volume available for claims. A supportable illustrative statement is: "The seller has allocated a reconciled eligible quantity to this output under the named scheme's Mass Balance rules." The overstatement is: "This shirt physically contains cotton from the certified farms in the allocation register." ISEAL distinguishes support for sustainable production from a claim that the final product contains sustainably produced material, which is precisely the communication boundary a mill must encode.[S0202][S07]
Book-and-claim separates the attribute instrument from physical supply. A credit or certificate is transferred under its own rules while the goods may follow an unrelated physical route. A supportable illustrative statement is: "The buyer has retired the stated instrument to support eligible production, subject to the issuing scheme's rules." The overstatement is: "The goods delivered with this report contain the credited material," or any suggestion of physical provenance created by the certificate. This model requires especially strict separation between the physical stock ledger and the credit register.[S02][S0202]
Exhibit 6 arranges the five working patterns by operational mixing freedom and by the way the attribute reaches the output. The positions are categories, not quality scores. A higher coordinate is not a better sustainability outcome, and a lower coordinate is not automatically preferable. The exhibit asks only whether the physical and administrative linkage matches the proposition that the seller intends to make.[S02][S0202]
The exhibit also exposes a common design error: treating physical segregation as a general measure of evidence quality. Segregation can preserve a class while destroying individual source identity. Mass balance can preserve a reliable eligible-volume account while saying nothing about the physical fibres in one output. Book-and-claim can support an approved production attribute without establishing any physical connection to the buyer's goods. Evidence quality must be judged against the question asked, not against how difficult the operating model appears.[S01][S0202]
ISEAL's current explanatory material also describes controlled mass balance, where all inputs meet minimum requirements while volumes with additional attributes are tracked. That variant should be entered separately in a scheme register rather than silently folded into ordinary mass balance or controlled blending. The existence of a named generic category does not prove that a textile scheme offers it, accepts it at every site, or permits the same claim language.[S02][S0202]
Apply the following GFT decision sequence in order, then confirm the answer against the selected scheme's current rules:[S02][S0202]
2.3
Related · chapter 056 paragraphs step it
Read-out
Illustrative transformation mass balance: 600 kg documented source A and 400 kg documented source B enter a 1,000 kg spinning laydown and allocate to 820 kg combed yarn, 130 kg recoverable comber noil and 50 kg process loss. Quantities are hypothetical teaching inputs under S10 transformation semantics and S02 claim boundaries, not empirical yield claims or GFT factory measurements.
Unit: kg (illustrative mass). Status: illustrative. Sources: S02, S10. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗Geographic origin behaves like a set of admissible input histories. A same-country pool can preserve a country-level proposition if every admitted input has sufficient origin evidence and the scheme permits the pool. It cannot preserve a narrower farm or producer-group claim when those sources have been combined. The surviving claim is therefore the intersection of the attributes evidenced across the input set, not the most attractive attribute attached to any one input.[S02][S06]
This rule separates two questions that procurement documents often combine. "Certified under scheme X" describes an assessed attribute under that scheme. "Grown in country Y" describes a geographic proposition. One may imply the other only where the scheme's actual scope and evidence make that connection explicit. A certified-class label should never be used as a convenient substitute for an origin record, nor should a country of ginning be treated automatically as the country where the cotton grew.[S03][S07]
A mixed-country batch creates a different boundary. It may support a documented statement about its set of possible origins, or a composition claim if the applicable rules and measurements allow one. It cannot support an unqualified single-country statement for the whole batch. Segregating the finished output into smaller lots does not repair the boundary, because a later split cannot recreate knowledge about which input fibres entered each item.[S02][S0202]
Unknown-origin material is more restrictive than a documented second origin. A second origin can be named in an input set. An unknown origin cannot be converted into a named country, assigned to a residue stream, or spread across production merely to make the remaining claim look complete. GFT's conservative design rule is to carry the unknown state into the affected output until original evidence resolves it. Any different treatment requires an explicit scheme rule and a visible calculation.[S01][S06]
The practical control belongs at input admission, before the mixing decision. Receiving should show which origin granularity each lot can support, and the production release should prevent a laydown whose combined input set would fall below the intended claim. If commercial needs require a single-country output, an unknown or differently sourced lot must follow another approved route rather than enter the batch and trigger a later relabelling exercise.[S03][S07]
Interlude · the cloth half-woven
Woven: sections 2.0 to 2.3Still to weave: 2.4 to 2.7
2.4
A scheme name is not a complete description of the assurance purchased. The Content Claim Standard (CCS) provides a framework for tracking certified materials and supporting certified-content claims. The Organic Content Standard (OCS) concerns third-party certification of organic materials and chain of custody. GOTS describes certified processing requirements and Transaction Certificates across the organic textile chain. These published scopes overlap in places, but they are not interchangeable labels for the same production, origin or processing proposition.[S03][S04][S0201]
Exhibit 7 summarises only the opened public scope descriptions. It is a selection aid, not a determination of certification equivalence. Detailed eligibility thresholds, approved inputs, exceptions, audit rules and claims language must be checked in the applicable normative documents before a real shipment is assessed.[S03][S04][S05]
Read-out
| CCS | Tracking certified material for certified-content claims | Receiving, processing and transfer records; volume reconciliation; segregation controls; scope and transaction certificates | Farm production attributes, geographic origin or automatic mark permission |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCS | Third-party certification of organic materials and chain of custody | Eligible certified organic input and third-party audit at each supply-chain stage | A particular country's origin, every processing impact or an uninspected supplier's status |
| GOTS | Certified organic textile processing and manufacturing with supply-chain traceability | Certified processing requirements and Transaction Certificates linking material movement | Certification of an uninspected organisation or permission to apply a mark to any shipment |
Sourced from opened public overviews, accessed 30 October 2026. This is not a certification equivalence determination or a substitute for current normative documents, certificate scope and claims rules. Exclusions state what the cited overview alone does not establish.
Unit: qualitative comparison of published scope summaries. Status: sourced. Sources: S03, S04, S05, S0201.
Four separate checks follow from this comparison. First, the scheme criteria define the attribute and custody requirements that the claimant seeks to meet. Second, the certification-body scope establishes which organisation, site and activities have been assessed, during which validity period and under which standard. Third, transaction evidence concerns specified material movements rather than the general existence of a certified organisation. Fourth, permission to use a mark depends on the applicable claims and licensing rules, not simply on possession of a certificate PDF.[S03][S05][S06]
The distinction prevents both under-reading and over-reading evidence. A scope certificate alone should not be treated as proof that every shipment from a certified site carries every possible claim. Conversely, a transaction document should not be dismissed merely because it does not answer wider questions about farm practices or processing impacts that sit outside its stated purpose. Each item should be admitted for the proposition it actually supports, with its issuer, scope and limitations retained.[S03][S05]
No certification is assigned here to Cameroon cotton, GFT's textile programme, a proposed supplier or any illustrative batch. The public scheme pages establish what their publishers say about the frameworks. They do not inspect a particular certificate, confirm a supplier's current status or authorise a product label. A project evidence room must obtain those artefacts directly and check them with the relevant issuer where necessary.[S04][S05][S06]
2.5
Exhibit 086 paragraphs step it
Read-out
Sourced document observations. Position 0 is the June 2025 standard; position 1 groups the live pages accessed 30 October 2026. The sequence does not infer a terminology-change date or establish that the legacy FAQ is the current rulebook.
Unit: ordered document observations, not elapsed time. Status: sourced. Sources: S06, S07, S08.
The opened CmiA documents provide a practical version-control warning. The June 2025 Transparency Standard uses Hard Identity Preserved (HIP) and Mass Balance. The current traceability webpage uses Segregation for the physically separated route, while the legacy FAQ still describes HIP and Mass Balance. These texts must remain distinguishable in the evidence register. Replacing every older term with a newer one would obscure which rulebook a supplier actually applied.[S06][S07][S08]
Exhibit 8 records the document observations without inventing the date on which terminology changed. An access date establishes what this chapter's author could read on that date. It does not establish when the page was published, when a contract changed, or which document governed an earlier shipment.[S06][S07]
A useful scheme register preserves both the normative and interpretive trail. For each document, record publisher, title, version, publication or access date, effective window, claimed-material scope, custody terms, claim rules consulted, file location and reviewer. Add a terminology crosswalk rather than overwriting the original wording. The June 2025 entry should therefore retain HIP, while a separate current-page entry records Segregation and notes the unresolved relationship for the shipment under review.[S06][S07]
Exhibit 9 populates those fields for the three CmiA documents used here. It is the starting register for a shipment review, not a decision that all three documents carry equal authority. The reviewer must add the applicable contract, claims framework and any later normative document before releasing a real claim.[S06][S07][S08]
The register also needs a discrepancy state. If a supplier contract says HIP, a current webpage says Segregation and an old FAQ describes a different downstream boundary, the reviewer should not choose the most convenient text silently. Record whether the discrepancy is editorial, temporal or substantive, identify the scheme owner who can resolve it, and block the affected claim if the answer changes what the buyer may say. Marketing statements on a scheme webpage remain that publisher's assertions until shipment-specific evidence establishes applicability.[S07][S08]
The same discipline applies to ISO 22095. This chapter opened its public abstract, not the paid clauses. The catalogue also identifies an amendment and revision activity. A generic design pattern can therefore be informed by the abstract, but no ISO conformity statement should be made until the applicable licensed edition, amendment and clause set have been obtained and reviewed.[S01]
2.6
Section 7.2 of the June 2025 CmiA Transparency Standard permits an eligible HIP product to be converted to Mass Balance when the affected actors meet its registration and authorisation conditions. It also states that the conversion is irreversible and final. Once downgraded, the product can no longer carry CmiA HIP claims or on-product communications, and the volume and supporting documentation must remain traceable. This is a scheme-specific rule for the opened edition, not a universal downgrade law for every standard.[S06]
Exhibit 10 shows only that permitted direction. It deliberately does not draw a return path from Mass Balance to HIP. A later purchase, certificate or software status change cannot restore the physical claim that the downgrade removed.[S06]
Read-out
Sourced from section 7.2 of the June 2025 CmiA Transparency Standard. Applies only where that edition and its conditions apply. The conversion is irreversible; no reverse transition or cross-scheme equivalence is asserted.
Unit: claim-state transition under the cited CmiA edition. Status: sourced. Sources: S06.
The operational state change must reach more than the accounting total. The claim register should mark the affected quantity as downgraded, retain the former HIP history and stop further release of the stronger wording. Labels, invoices, product pages and buyer data feeds should be reviewed for stale claims. The record is corrected by appending the downgrade and its evidence, not by deleting the earlier state and pretending that the product had always followed Mass Balance.[S06]
For an illustrative control case, suppose 500 kg of eligible HIP product is validly downgraded and a separate 500 kg HIP purchase arrives later. The new purchase may enter its own eligible HIP route if all requirements are met, but it cannot be used to reclassify the first 500 kg retrospectively. These quantities are chosen only to demonstrate claim-state separation. They are not stock observations or evidence that such a transaction occurred.[S06]
suppose 500 kg of eligible HIP product is validly downgraded and a separate 500…
illustrative
Three registers must therefore remain distinct. The physical stock register records material on hand and its observed movements. The scheme-volume register records eligible purchases, transformations, allocations, downgrades, sales and cancellations under the applicable rules. A credit register, where relevant, records instruments that may travel separately from material. Reconciliation should expose their relationships without treating a positive scheme balance as physical identity or a retired credit as inventory.[S03][S06]
2.7
Read-out
Illustrative GFT assay qualification and claim-review flow. No assay outputs, reference-library coverage or classifier performance are asserted. Supportive evidence corroborates only the qualified hypothesis and sample boundary; documentary custody and claim release remain separate checks.
Unit: illustrative qualification sequence. Status: illustrative. Sources: S33, S0701, S29. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗Read-out
Illustrative GFT design. Public visibility, evidence access and evidential acceptance are independent decisions. No deployed access control or independent assessment is claimed.
Unit: proposed disclosure layers. Status: illustrative. Sources: S19, S21, S26, S29. Illustrative figures are teaching examples, not measured factory results.
Read this exhibit in its chapter ↗2.7 · Introduction
A custody model fails commercially when it remains a design note while purchasing accepts material under broader or different terms.
Exhibit 30, chapter 07: Define origin hypothesis and boundary
2.8 · The schedule must make the boundary inspectable
Exhibit 11 provides a proposed schedule structure.
Exhibit 30, chapter 07: Define origin hypothesis and boundary
2.9 · Evidence delivery needs an acceptance state
Every required document needs a due point and an acceptance state.
Exhibit 30, chapter 07: Check laboratory and sample custody
2.10 · Subcontracting belongs inside the custody boundary
A subcontractor is not outside the claim merely because no sale occurs between the contracting parties.
Exhibit 39, chapter 09: Public
2.11 · Failure handling must remove claims before disputes are settled
The schedule should distinguish a documentation delay, a physical nonconformity and a claim contradiction.
Exhibit 39, chapter 09: Buyer
2.7 · the bodyThe film above follows these sub-steps.
A custody model fails commercially when it remains a design note while purchasing accepts material under broader or different terms. The purchase specification must carry the claim boundary into supplier selection, order acceptance, receiving, subcontracting, evidence delivery and failure handling. A supplier cannot infer the required physical separation from a product name, and a buyer cannot repair an incompatible purchase by adding a stronger statement at dispatch.[S02][S03]
GFT's proposed control is a procurement evidence schedule attached to the claim card. The schedule identifies the admissible material, the exact custody model and scheme edition, the evidence due with each lot, and the decision when evidence is absent or contradictory. It also names the operational owner who can release material and the commercial owner who can approve wording. These are separate decisions: physical acceptance does not automatically authorise a public claim.[S03][S06]
Exhibit 11 provides a proposed schedule structure. Its entries are illustrative GFT controls derived from the opened CCS and CmiA requirements. They are not represented as enforceable contract wording or as a complete list for any scheme. Each project should adapt the schedule to the applicable rulebook and have its contractual effect reviewed by qualified advisers.[S03][S06]
The schedule should be completed before a request for quotation, not after a supplier has been selected. Otherwise commercial pressure can determine the custody model retroactively. A supplier that cannot provide individual source identity may still be suitable for segregation or Mass Balance, but only if the buyer accepts the narrower proposition before the order. Changing the model is a claim-design decision with operational consequences, not a clerical substitution of one acronym for another.[S02][S0202]
Every required document needs a due point and an acceptance state. GFT proposes expected, received, matched, queried, quarantined and released as working states. "Received" means a file or record has arrived. "Matched" means its supplier, site, material, identifiers, quantities and model have been reconciled with the physical lot and purchase terms. Only the appropriate reviewer can move a matched evidence pack to released status. These states are proposed controls, not terms borrowed from a particular scheme.[S03][S06]
An attachment count is not a completeness test. A delivery can contain an invoice, certificate and photograph while lacking the lot reference that connects any of them to the goods. Receiving should therefore test relationships across the pack: the supplier on the order matches the eligible entity, the site falls within the accepted scope, the delivery identifier appears on the transport record, and the claimed model agrees with the purchase specification. Missing links remain unknown and visible rather than being filled from a supplier master record.[S03][S06]
Evidence due after shipment also needs a controlled path. The schedule should state whether material may be processed while transaction evidence is pending, which claim must remain blocked, who follows up and when the lot becomes an exception. The opened CmiA standard separates material handling, tracking entries and claim release, which illustrates why physical receipt alone cannot close the evidence review. Other schemes require their own timing and acceptance rules.[S06]
A subcontractor is not outside the claim merely because no sale occurs between the contracting parties. The proposed schedule must identify the activity, site, material identifiers, quantities dispatched and returned, applicable custody rules and records to be delivered. Under the opened CmiA standard, outsourcing controls include signed agreements, accurate input and output records, restrictions on further outsourcing and assessment access. These specific duties should be cited only where that standard applies, but the underlying design question is general: can the principal reconstruct what happened to the claimed material?[S06]
Change control should cover a replacement site, an additional process step, a new material class and a changed recipe. The supplier should not be able to move claimed work to an unreviewed subcontractor because the commercial product description remains unchanged. Procurement and operations need a trigger that submits such changes to the evidence approver before work starts. If the change has already occurred, the output enters an exception state until its admissible claim is reconstructed from records.[S03][S06]
The schedule should distinguish a documentation delay, a physical nonconformity and a claim contradiction. Each requires containment, but the commercial response may differ. A missing delivery reference may be resolved from original evidence. An unrecorded mixture may force a narrower custody model. A contradiction about source or certificate scope may require quarantine and issuer confirmation. None of these situations justifies deleting the original record or releasing the preferred claim while investigation continues.[S03][S06]
Where a downgrade is available, its effect on labels, invoices and buyer communications must be executed with the accounting change. Where no valid route remains, the material should be sold or used without the claim, subject to the applicable rules. Commercial remedies, warranties, indemnities, termination rights and notification duties require legal review. This chapter specifies evidence and operating controls, not legal advice or an enforceable contract template.[S06]
The result is a closed design loop. The claim card defines what must be true. The custody model determines which physical and administrative controls can preserve it. The scheme register fixes the terminology and rules against which evidence will be judged. The downgrade procedure removes stronger claims when the boundary changes. Procurement then makes those choices binding on ordinary acceptance work, so that a product passport can publish only what the chain has actually preserved.[S01][S06]
For the companion tool, Exhibit 6 and the claim-card fields are proposed model-specific inputs to trace-a-garment, whose scenarios remain educational rather than certificates. Legal review of claims and procurement wording remains with wp17; this chapter supplies the evidence boundary for that review, not a legal conclusion.[S01][S03]
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.
10 sources · 110 citation marks on this pageMost cited: S06, 28 times
Grade AGrade BGrade CKnot size: citations on this page
All 10 records shown
c02-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 ↗c02-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 ↗c02-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 ↗c02-S04 · Grade B
The Organic Content Standard
A professional, third-party certification body audits each stage in the supply chain.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c02-S05 · Grade B
GOTS: Key features
Transaction Certificates confirm that materials and products move through certified supply chains.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c02-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 ↗c02-S07 · Grade B
How Do We Track Every Fibre?
Under the Segregation chain of custody model, verified cotton is kept physically separate throughout the trading, processing, and treating stages.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c02-S08 · Grade B
FAQ
From that point on, however, they diverge and offer varying degrees of transparency.
2026-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c02-S0201 · Grade A
Benefits of GOTS
Transaction Certificates and certified processing requirements support traceability throughout the textile supply chain, from certified organic fibre to finished product.
2026-06-14. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗c02-S0202 · Grade B
Choosing the right chain of custody model for supply chain impact
Total volumes of material that meet sustainability criteria are tracked through the supply chain but are mixed with other materials.
2025-10-30. Register access date: 2026-10-30. Source provenance is supplied by the paper evidence register.
Open the recorded source ↗S01 International Organization for Standardization. 2020.
S02 ISEAL Alliance. 2025.
S0202 ISEAL Alliance. 2025-10-30.
S03 Textile Exchange. 2026-10-30.
S06 Aid by Trade Foundation. 2025.
S07 Aid by Trade Foundation / Cotton made in Africa. 2026-10-30.
S04 Textile Exchange. 2026-10-30.
S0201 Global Standards gGmbH. 2026-06-14.
S05 Global Standards gGmbH. 2026-10-30.
S08 Aid by Trade Foundation / Cotton made in Africa. 2026-10-30.
Keep the thread · chapter 02 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.