Control artwork revisions by giving each item a stable identity and each accepted change a clear new reference. Filenames such as final-new are weak evidence when several people exchange files. Maintain one current production baseline and preserve older versions with visible status. This lets a buyer, designer and converter understand what changed, who accepted it and which file belongs to the next order.
Keep item identity stable
Choose a naming or document-reference system that identifies the SKU, size and relevant market or language variant. Adapt it to the business’s existing controls rather than introducing a competing code system. Keep the item identity separate from revision so a new version can be recognised as a change to the same packaging item. Record the structural reference alongside it. A folder containing several correctly named files can still be ambiguous if nobody has recorded which one is accepted for production.
Write a change note people can use
Describe the actual edit and the source of the request. Identify affected panels or content fields rather than writing minor corrections. Ask which owners must review the change: text, translation, barcode, structural layout or appearance. Compare the new file with the accepted baseline, using an appropriate review method. Do not rely on memory to spot differences across a complex design. Keep working comments separate from the clean released file so a proposed edit is not accidentally treated as an accepted production instruction.
Control release and retrieval
When approved, record the revision, decision scope and date, then send the clean reference through the agreed channel. Ask the converter to acknowledge the applicable file. Mark earlier versions superseded in the project system while preserving the history needed for traceability. Before a repeat order, check the accepted baseline against current product and content requirements. The previous order number can help retrieve a job, but it should not replace a deliberate revision check. Old stock and new artwork may need a transition plan through the responsible business process.
Use an artwork change ledger
The ledger ties a proposed edit to its approval and production use. It can be maintained in a simple controlled table if that fits the team's existing process.
| Record | What to capture and how to use it |
|---|---|
| Item identity | Record SKU, size and relevant language or market variant using the existing item system. Link the structural drawing so a familiar design name cannot conceal different pouch geometry or a file intended for another variant. |
| Baseline and revision | Identify the current accepted file and proposed new reference. Keep their status explicit, enabling reviewers to compare the change without guessing which of several final-labelled attachments is the correct starting point. |
| Change description | State the edited content or location and the source of the request. Identify the affected panels or fields and avoid vague minor-change wording, which gives later reviewers little basis for understanding the approval scope. |
| Required decisions | Name the relevant content, technical or appearance owners and the evidence needed. Record acceptance against the revised file, preserving open subjects until the responsible reviewer has resolved them. |
| Production use | Record the clean release reference, supplier acknowledgement and affected order scope. Mark superseded files visibly and carry any stock-transition question into the business process before assuming the old and new versions are interchangeable. |
Use one document owner to issue the ledger update, while keeping subject decisions with their authorised reviewers. Central coordination should make the history easier to retrieve, not turn one person into an unqualified approver of every requirement.
Illustrative two final attachments
A brand sends a corrected ingredient statement in one attachment and a revised graphic in another, both labelled final. The converter asks which combined version is authorised. The document owner creates one clean revision containing the accepted changes, records their owners and issues it with the updated ledger. Earlier attachments remain in history with superseded status. The example illustrates a reference-control problem; it does not establish whether any particular ingredient wording is legally correct.
Esko describes prepress approvals. BOBST lists distinct production processes.
Identify the job before the version
A revision ledger begins with the item, size and variant. A revision number is meaningful only within that identity. If two related packs both have a file called version four, the ledger must still distinguish them. Record the current drawing and artwork references together where their relationship matters to the job.
This article concerns the files and decisions governing a particular artwork job. A wider catalogue of reusable logos, photographs and approved text is a different management task. Reference the relevant assets where necessary, but keep the job ledger focused on what changed in this item and which file production is authorised to use.
Describe the change in observable terms
Write what moved, changed or was replaced. “Updated artwork” is less useful than “replaced the back-panel paragraph and moved its heading”. Include the originating request and the affected subject. The description helps reviewers focus their attention without assuming that unmentioned parts were independently checked again.
For an illustrative job, revision A5 corrects one product statement while A6 also moves a feature boundary. The first change needs the relevant content review. The second can involve structural and layout interfaces as well. Record the actual required decisions rather than applying a one-size approval rule to both revisions.
Compare the new file with the accepted baseline
Use the previously accepted job file as the comparison reference. Ask the preparer to identify intended changes and any additional differences detected during review. A comparison image or change list can help, but reviewers should still have access to the actual file at the relevant size. The tool output does not decide whether a difference is acceptable.
If the baseline cannot be identified, resolve that uncertainty before claiming the new file is a minor revision. Search the project's accepted references and ask the responsible owner to confirm the controlling version. Choosing the latest timestamp can be misleading when a file was copied, exported or renamed after approval.
Retire the superseded production reference
After acceptance, issue the new production reference through the agreed process and identify the version it supersedes. Keep obsolete files available as records where the organisation requires them, but make their status clear. A folder containing old and new files with equal apparent authority leaves the production user to make an unsupported choice.
Ask the receiver to acknowledge the exact job reference. An email saying “received” may not confirm that the revised file replaced the previous production input. The handover should connect item, revision and intended use. If production preparation has already begun, route the changed subject through the relevant owner rather than assuming a file upload changed the physical work.
Preserve decisions alongside the files
For each revision, retain the accepted proof or sample reference and the subject covered by approval. A content reviewer may accept wording while a technical owner has not yet accepted a moved boundary. Keep the remaining decision visible instead of giving the whole revision a broad approved label prematurely.
When a later correction arrives, the ledger should show whether it reopens an accepted subject or resolves an outstanding one. This distinction helps plan the next review efficiently. It also keeps a change from disappearing inside a long email chain where the file, request and decision can no longer be matched.
Use the ledger at repeat-order intake
Before a repeat order, ask the responsible team to identify the authorised artwork for that item. Compare the order reference with the ledger rather than a salesperson's saved attachment. Confirm any proposed change against the current baseline and route it for the affected decisions.
The practical outcome is a short history that answers what changed, who accepted it and which job file may be used. It does not prove that every stored asset is current or that every physical stock item has changed. Those wider questions need their own records. The job ledger makes the particular artwork decision traceable and prevents the wrong “final” file from returning through an informal handover.
Artwork revision control: a practical specification example
A designer is preparing a pouch face before the final closure layout is fixed. Ask for a dimensioned dieline and distinguish the finished trim, sealed areas, folds and visible panel. Place essential information inside the usable artwork area. A flat-bottom pack also needs side and base-panel orientation to be reviewed; a good-looking front panel does not approve the complete artwork set.
For this decision, start with the changed fields and approval owner. The useful output is a version list that identifies the single current file. Put that output beside the relevant quotation, drawing or sample rather than leaving it in a separate email. This is an illustrative decision exercise, not a report of a completed customer trial.
Product references to make the discussion concrete
The catalogue includes flat-bottom pouches and jar-shaped zipper pouches. These examples show different physical constructions; they are not interchangeable specifications. A box-style base gives the filled pack a distinct footprint, with separate front, back and side panels. Compare a plain top opening with a regular zipper, and use filled samples to decide the shelf depth and panel proportions.
| Format reference | Material or construction to clarify | Details to include in the brief |
|---|---|---|
| Flat-bottom pouches | Flexible laminate with paper-look or opaque outer options; the appearance alone does not identify the full layer structure. | Base width and full opened depth; net fill and product bulk. |
| Jar-shaped zipper pouches | Clear or frosted flexible pouch construction with a zipper; the jar shape is a profile, not a rigid container. | Usable cavity and narrowest opening; die-cut outline and corner radii. |
Use the reference pictures to identify the base, side panels, window or opening that you mean. A picture cannot supply the missing dimensions or material layers. If a photograph shows a finish or closure you do not want, state that difference explicitly; otherwise a visual reference can introduce an unintended requirement.
Complete the record before requesting the next sample
- Attach a version list that identifies the single current file. Identify the product or SKU and the date of the observation.
- Record the changed fields and approval owner. Keep confirmed information separate from proposed values and questions for the supplier.
- Add the actual fill weight or volume, the dimension convention, material proposal and intended closure. Include the number of designs and quantity per design when requesting a quotation.
- State which question the next drawing, sample or quotation must resolve. A change of size, closure or material should remain visible alongside the earlier reference.
This record makes the next conversation specific. It lets the design, purchasing and packing teams work from the same proposed item and shows which decision still needs evidence. Review the related product pages for format details, or prepare a custom packaging brief with the unresolved requirements.
Make reordering a revision decision
Before confirming a repeat job, retrieve the current accepted file and ask whether its content and structure still apply. Record proposed edits through the same ledger. Include the accepted revision in the order rather than referring only to last time. This creates a repeatable handover even when staff, agencies or suppliers change.
Send the completed artwork change ledger with your product and filling details to Navkar Poly Print for a project-specific discussion. Ask for the proposed specification, evidence required and open questions to be recorded before quotation approval.
Sources and scope.
These references support the technical discussion. Product photographs illustrate formats; the material, dimensions and suitability of the proposed pack are confirmed for each project.
- Esko packaging prepress process
Primary prepress-software supplier reference; buyer worksheets are original editorial tools.
- BOBST flexible packaging processes
Current equipment-manufacturer process reference. Narrow contextual citation only; no Navkar machinery or performance inference.
Let’s discuss your product.
Share your contents, dimensions, filling method, quantity and delivery destination. We’ll work through the proposed packaging specification with you.
Create a packaging brief