A shade or caliber note on a delivery does not tell a buyer whether the material can be released to site. It tells them what the supplier recorded. Whether that record answers the actual question in front of the project team — is this batch the one that was approved, will these lots read as one field once installed, does this carton meet the size the drawings assume — depends on what the documents cover and what they cannot. The judgment that matters is not whether paperwork exists, but whether it closes the specific gap the project has, or whether someone still has to open a carton and look.
Separate Documentary Identity From Physical Evidence
Shade and nuance codes, caliber or size codes, and batch or lot identifiers are fields a manufacturer assigns to a production run so that it can be tracked, reordered, and reconciled against a purchase order. They describe what the producer declares about a run at the point of packing. RAKO and Villeroy & Boch both use this kind of label field in their technical documentation, and in both cases the code is defined by that manufacturer’s own system rather than by an appearance a person has actually seen installed. A code confirms that a box belongs to a declared production identity. It does not confirm what that identity looks like once tiles from it are laid side by side, and it does not confirm a physical dimension unless a measurement has been taken against a stated method.
This distinction matters because the two kinds of evidence answer different questions. A traceability question — is this the same product, same declared shade group, same declared caliber as what was ordered or approved — can often be closed from labels and paperwork alone, provided the fields are complete and consistent. A visual or dimensional question — will this material look acceptable in the finished area, does it actually meet a size tolerance — is a different question, and no label field answers it directly. ISO 10545-2 keeps this separation explicit at the standard level: it defines methods for determining dimensional characteristics and surface quality, which is a different activity from reading an identity code off a package. A label and a measurement can agree or disagree, and only one of them is the appearance or the dimension itself.
The practical consequence is that a buyer should ask, before opening any carton, which of these two categories the pending decision actually belongs to. Where the outstanding question is about identity and reconciliation, document review may be the correct and sufficient tool. Where the outstanding question is about how the material will look or measure once handled, no amount of additional paperwork substitutes for looking at or measuring the physical product. Confusing the two leads either to unnecessary physical inspection of material that was never in doubt, or to releasing material on paperwork when the real question was never about identity at all.
Use Documents for Traceability and Code Reconciliation
Document-based reconciliation works by following the same identifying information through every stage where it should have been recorded. Технічна документація компанії RAKO describes tracing batch information across client documents, pallet labels, packages, and delivery notes — the same set of fields is expected to appear, and to match, at each point in that chain. When a buyer performs this kind of check, they are confirming that the product code, shade or nuance code, caliber or size code, quality grade, lot number, purchase order line, and intended area allocation all agree across every document that should reference them. If they agree end to end, the identity question is closed without needing to open a box.
This kind of check is only as strong as the legend behind it. A shade or caliber code is manufacturer-specific: RAKO’s codes and Villeroy & Boch’s codes are not interchangeable systems, and neither establishes what a differently sourced code means. A reconciliation exercise is sound only when the buyer knows, for the actual product in question, what each field means, what values are expected, and what a mismatch would indicate. Where that legend is undocumented, unclear, or assumed rather than confirmed, a clean-looking match across documents does not actually establish identity — it only shows that unexplained codes agree with each other.
The scope of what reconciliation can close is also bounded by what the documents were meant to record. A pallet label and a delivery note can confirm that a given carton belongs to a stated lot and was allocated to a stated area. They cannot confirm that the lot looks the way the buyer expects, and they cannot confirm that the declared caliber matches an actual measured dimension unless a measurement is separately recorded somewhere in the chain. Document reconciliation is a bounded identity decision: it establishes that the paper trail is internally consistent, not that the consistent paper trail describes an outcome the project will find acceptable once installed. Where every field lines up and the legend is known, the identity question can close on paper. Where any field is missing, ambiguous, or drawn from an unstated legend, the question stays open regardless of how complete the rest of the paperwork looks.
Trigger Physical Review for Appearance or Measurement Gaps
Certain conditions convert a documentary question into a physical one, and recognizing them early avoids inspecting material that documents could have cleared, or worse, releasing material that documents could never have cleared. The clearest trigger is a code mismatch or an undecoded field: if shade or caliber codes differ between what was ordered and what arrived, or if a code cannot be interpreted against a known legend, no further paper review resolves it — someone has to look at or measure the material itself.
A second trigger arises when a continuous visual area is built from more than one lot. Even where each lot’s documentation is internally consistent, two declared-compliant lots placed side by side are a visual question that documents do not answer, because a code describes a declared category, not the specific tiles a person will see together on a wall or floor. RAKO’s and Villeroy & Boch’s own guidance point toward checking material from multiple boxes for exactly this reason — a lot boundary is a paperwork event, but the eye does not read paperwork.
A third trigger is intentional variation. Where a product is designed to include deliberate shade or texture variation as part of its visual character, the review question is not whether the material deviates from a fixed standard but whether the mix of pieces achieves the intended range once seen together — a judgment a code cannot make.
A fourth trigger is a reference that is not lot-linked: where an approved sample or mock-up cannot be tied to a specific production lot, comparing new material against it is a physical comparison exercise, not a documentary reconciliation, because there is no batch record connecting the reference to what is being checked against it.
A fifth trigger is disputed visible condition — surface marks, chips, or finish irregularities that one party considers acceptable and another does not. Labels do not record condition at this level of detail.
The final and most direct trigger is when dimensional compliance is the actual decision rather than an assumption drawn from a declared caliber code. ISO 10545-2 defines the method for determining dimensional characteristics separately from any label, which means a caliber code is a declared category, not a confirmed measurement, until that method has actually been applied to the material in question.
| Pending question | Documents may be enough when | Physical review is still needed when | Suitable physical route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the labels traceably the same? | Supplier legend and order, pallet and carton fields reconcile | Labels are missing, inconsistent or undecoded | Label and material identity check |
| Will lots look acceptable together? | No visual decision is being made from the documents | Codes differ, lots share a visual field or intended variation must be judged | Traceable side-by-side sample review |
| Does size meet the project requirement? | Only declared identity is being confirmed | Actual dimensional compliance is the decision | Measurement under the applicable method and project criteria |
| Does an installed area meet the design intent? | The project does not require installed-assembly review | Joints, layout, interfaces or workmanship affect the decision | Project-defined site mock-up |
| Can the material be released? | Every required documentary and physical decision is closed by the authorized party | Any identity, scope, comparison or criterion remains unresolved | Hold the affected lot or area pending the missing evidence |
Match the Review Method to the Unanswered Decision
Once a gap is identified as physical rather than documentary, the review method should be chosen for what it can actually establish, not applied as a default. A side-by-side visual comparison — placing pieces from the lots or cartons in question next to each other under representative conditions — answers whether shade, tone, or surface character will read as consistent or as an acceptable intended variation across a continuous area. It does not establish a dimension, and it does not by itself establish traceability unless the pieces compared are tied back to known lots.
A traceable sample review differs from an untraceable one in exactly that respect: pulling material that is linked to a recorded lot or lots means the comparison result can be tied back into the documentary chain afterward, closing both the visual and the identity question together. Where the sample or reference used for comparison cannot be linked to a lot, the comparison may still answer the visual question but leaves the identity question open, and the two should not be treated as resolved together.
Measurement under an applicable method — the kind ISO 10545-2 addresses for dimensional characteristics and surface quality — is the correct route only where the pending decision is genuinely dimensional: whether a caliber or size actually meets what the project requires, as distinct from what a caliber code declares. Measurement answers a narrower question than a visual comparison and should not be substituted for one, nor asked to resolve a shade or nuance question it was not designed to address.
A site mock-up, built under the project’s own conditions with the actual substrate, adhesive, joint width, and layout the finished area will use, answers a different and broader question again: whether the installed assembly meets the design intent, including how joints, interfaces, and workmanship interact with the material’s appearance. This is the appropriate route only where those installed-assembly factors are actually part of what is being judged; where the question is limited to whether two lots look alike out of the box, a mock-up answers more than was asked and consumes material and time that a simpler comparison would not have required.
Choosing among these routes means matching the method to the narrowest question actually open, and recording which condition — a code gap, a multi-lot area, an intentional-variation judgment, an unlinked reference, a disputed condition, or a stated dimensional requirement — justified that choice. Vitagres’s product pages, including listings such as the porcelain luxury tile range, can serve as the anchor for requesting both the documentary label information and, where the gap warrants it, a physical sample for this kind of comparison.
Record the Combined Evidence and Remaining Holds
A decision record that combines documentary and physical evidence should state plainly which question each piece of evidence closed. Reconciled codes, lot numbers, and area allocations close the identity question when the legend was known and every field agreed. A side-by-side comparison, measurement, or mock-up closes whichever visual, dimensional, or installed-assembly question it was actually run to answer. Neither substitutes for the other, and the record should show that the method used matched the question that was actually open rather than assume that clearing one type of gap closed the other.
What the record should not do is quietly extend a closed question into an unrelated one. A confirmed identity match does not confirm slip resistance, wear rating, frost resistance, or any other performance property; those depend on separate specification and certification evidence tied to the specific product and its intended exposure, and they stay open regardless of how thoroughly the shade and caliber questions were resolved. A cleared visual comparison for one continuous area does not extend automatically to a different area, a different lot, or a different intended use. Each open item — performance criteria, compliance documentation, stock and lead time, commercial terms — should remain listed as open until it has its own supporting evidence, rather than being treated as resolved by proximity to a closed shade or caliber check.
Where information the project needs is genuinely not yet available — the actual code legend for the product in question, the labels and samples as supplied, confirmed dimensions, the specific project conditions, agreed tolerances, or who holds authority to release or hold material — the record should name that gap directly rather than proceed as though it has been settled. This is also the point at which the customer’s own project information becomes part of what a supplier needs to review: the area allocation, the lots involved, and the specific comparison or measurement requested are what allow a quotation or supply review to be matched to the actual open question rather than to a generic product listing. Where any of that information remains unresolved, the affected lot or area holds until it is supplied, and the hold applies only to the specific question that is still open. For the questions that sit outside shade and caliber entirely, a broader review of supplier and product questions, such as the porcelain tile guide covering standards and points to confirm before purchase, is a separate exercise from the one this decision record is meant to close.
Поширені запитання
Q: We only need to confirm that delivered cartons belong to the declared stock. Do we need an appearance review for that decision?
A: Documents can support that bounded identity decision if the supplier legend is known and the product, shade, caliber, quality, lot, order line and area allocation reconcile. Keep the conclusion limited to identity. If the pending question changes to appearance or actual dimensions, the same records do not close it.
Q: The codes agree, but the buyer disputes the visible appearance. Can the paperwork settle the dispute?
A: No; matching declared identities does not display the actual visual result. Use traceable physical samples for a comparison under recorded project conditions and with the approved reference. Keep the documentary identities in the same decision record so the visual finding remains connected to the material reviewed.
Q: Can an approved visual sample resolve a concern about actual tile size?
A: A visual approval does not establish dimensional compliance. Use measurement under the applicable method and project criteria when actual size is the decision, and connect the measured units to their lot identity. Confirm the applicable tolerance rather than deriving acceptance from a caliber code or the sample’s appearance.
Q: We are uncertain about joints and interfaces after installation. Would another loose-tile comparison answer that?
A: A project-defined site mock-up is the suitable route when the decision concerns joints, layout, interfaces or workmanship. A loose-tile comparison can address appearance between samples, but it does not show those assembly conditions. Record the mock-up conditions and review authority so it answers the installed-area question.
Q: Physical review is acceptable, but some identity records are still missing. Can we close the release decision?
A: Keep the affected lot or area on hold while a required identity or evidence link remains unresolved. Combine the documentary and physical results, state the scope each covers, and identify the missing record or criterion for the authorized reviewer. An acceptable physical comparison also leaves unrelated performance, compliance and commercial questions open.