Sample approval across sites and China suppliers
Send equivalent sample sets to each site, use a shared test protocol and set feedback deadlines. Reconcile conflicting results before a named buyer authority issues a release record that lists scope, conditions and unresolved objections. Cambridge China Bridge can coordinate this with its own staff in China.
Define whose feedback can authorise release
Before dispatch, name the buyer's release authority, site evaluators, technical reviewers and feedback coordinator. State which sites must respond and which checks each owns. Site feedback should feed the shared decision rather than become a separate instruction to a factory. Use the decision ownership guide to assign responsibilities.
Agree how disagreements reach the release authority and who can act during absence. Define the scope of sample approval: it may confirm suitability for a named use without authorising production, shipment or payment. Tell every factory which authorised record it should act on and where to send conflicting messages.
Send equivalent sets and confirm receipt
Build a dispatch register linking each factory, physical sample, specification revision, sample stage and receiving site. Each site should receive comparable candidates representing the same intended materials, construction and finish. Record declared differences before testing. Use the reference-set guide for managing the reference itself; this register connects those sets to site decisions.
Ask each site to confirm sample identity, completeness and arrival condition before its trial starts. Record missing, substituted or damaged items and arrange replacements where needed. Preserve unused references separately from tested pieces. A photograph can support identification, but should not replace a physical assessment of fit, handling or performance.
Use a shared protocol and feedback deadline
Issue the same protocol and feedback form to every site. Put common acceptance checks alongside site-specific trials, such as compatibility with local fittings or cleaning equipment. Agree local variations before testing and label their results separately. The fair sample comparison guide covers comparison methods; here, the aim is to make results from different sites interpretable together.
Set a receipt-confirmation deadline, feedback deadline and review meeting in the shared calendar, allowing for delivery and evaluator availability. Require observations, photographs, test conditions and a reason for each objection. Missing feedback means not assessed, rather than approval. If a required site cannot complete its checks, keep its scope on hold or arrange an agreed substitute assessment.
Reconcile objections without averaging them away
Consolidate feedback by factory, sample revision, criterion and site. Preserve the original submissions. When sites disagree, check whether they received equivalent samples, followed the protocol and tested comparable conditions. Separate a sample defect from a local compatibility problem or a preference. Agree targeted retesting rather than letting a favourable overall score conceal an essential failure.
Give each objection an owner, supporting evidence, required action and closure condition. Retain the objecting site's wording and record the review outcome beside it. UK manufacturers and importers placing products on the market need to demonstrate compliance with relevant safety requirements. Keep that review separate from site preferences; hold release where an essential safety or compliance question remains unresolved. For own-label compliance records, see the SKU compliance and label approval matrix.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Affected scope | Factory, sample revision, criterion and site |
| Objection and evidence | Original feedback, observations and supporting records |
| Investigation | Sample differences, trial exceptions and agreed retest |
| Resolution | Owner, action, closure condition and review outcome |
| Release effect | Hold, restricted scope or documented preference decision |
Issue the authorised record and control changes
Issue a controlled release record naming the authorised buyer approver, selected factory, approved sample and specification revision, covered sites and intended use. Attach the results and objection register. List exclusions, unresolved objections and conditions visibly. If release covers only unaffected sites or uses, explain that boundary and how excluded goods will be kept out of those locations.
Send the same record to head office, sites and affected factories, and obtain acknowledgement. Withdraw superseded instructions. A changed material, construction or sample revision should trigger a documented review of affected checks and sites. Cambridge China Bridge can coordinate factory clarification through its staff in China using sample comparison, product development and retailer sourcing, while the buyer retains release authority.
Frequently asked questions
Who should sign off samples across several sites?
Name a buyer release authority before dispatch. Sites submit evidence within their assigned scope; the authority records the decision, exclusions and unresolved objections in the shared release record.
What if regional sites disagree about a sample?
Check sample identity and trial conditions, then investigate the disputed criterion. Preserve each site's feedback and retest where needed. Do not average an essential failure into a preference score.
Can we approve samples if a site misses the deadline?
Treat missing feedback as not assessed. Hold the affected scope or arrange an agreed substitute assessment. Any limited release should explicitly exclude the unassessed site or use.
Does head office approval cover every Chinese factory?
Only where the release record expressly identifies each factory and its approved revision and scope. Do not assume that approval of a similar sample extends to another supplier or changed materials.