Confirm the Printer Received the Exact Approved Gift Artwork

An artwork approval can be correct while the printer’s received files are wrong. For a two-sided promotional mug, establish a separate receipt for each approved face, tied to the actual supplied artifact and the person who received it. A reply saying “final artwork received” leaves the buyer unable to tell which front and back files the reply covers.

Start this record after the design and its intended surfaces have already been approved. Keep those decisions fixed. The task is to establish whether the approved set reached its intended recipient and to resolve any identity gap before anyone relies on that receipt.

Anchor the receipt to the existing approval

Find the approval reference that identifies the chosen gift, decorated surfaces and artwork revisions. Preserve the actual approved artifacts alongside that reference through the agreed records arrangement. If the approval points only to a preview and never identifies the related production asset, ask the responsible artwork owner to supply that relationship. Do not let the sender choose a plausible file from an old conversation.

Use the surface names already established by the approved layout. “Front” and “back” should refer to that existing map, rather than a new interpretation of how someone holds the mug. The custom gift printing guide covers layout, file preparation and sample approval. This receipt carries their agreed outcome into the handover without reopening the design.

Where one file contains several surfaces, identify the relevant pages or named sections using the approved reference. Where separate files serve separate surfaces, give each its own row. A folder title should never conceal an unaccounted-for back design.

Distinguish the preview from the asset being delivered

Describe the role of each artifact. An approval preview shows what was reviewed; a production asset is the file identified for the printer’s agreed work; an approval record identifies the decision and its scope. They may travel together, but a recipient acknowledging one has not necessarily acknowledged the others.

Record how the preview relates to the asset. Was it supplied by the artwork owner as a preview of that exact issue? Does the approval identify both? If the relationship is unknown, preserve the uncertainty. Visual similarity is a reason to investigate, not a sound basis for choosing between near-identical revisions.

Use artifact identifiers backed by the retained files or exact transfer references. A useful identifier can be simple and agreed between the parties; this method does not require specialist software. Names such as “final” are insufficient when several attachments use the same name. A renamed received file may still correspond to the approved artifact, but the responsible sender must establish that correspondence rather than relying on the label alone.

Ask the receiving printer for a file-specific answer

Identify the actual receiving contact and the handover point. If an intermediary forwards the package, its own receipt establishes only that earlier step. Request the downstream printer’s acknowledgement of the particular assets through the agreed contact route, with the forwarding relationship visible.

Ask the printer to identify what it actually received for each surface and whether it can access those artifacts. “Link supplied,” “file received” and “file accessible to the named recipient” answer different questions. Record a failed download, inaccessible link or missing attachment as such, even when the sender’s transfer record looks complete.

The acknowledgement should point back to the supplied record or itemise the received identifiers. Preserve its source and date. If a reply refers vaguely to “the two files,” ask which two, rather than completing the fields on the printer’s behalf. Agree who follows up the missing answer and when the next decision is needed; no automated tracker is assumed.

Work through a hypothetical front and back mismatch

The following mug example is entirely fictional. All artifact IDs, preview relationships and acknowledgements in the table are teaching assumptions, not customer evidence.

One of the two surface identities matches the approved set; the other remains unresolved. Both filenames could contain “final” without changing that result. A front-side acknowledgement cannot compensate for a back-side mismatch, and the two rows do not constitute a production-completion percentage.

Suppose the sender checks the retained artifacts and confirms that B1 was sent accidentally. The next useful action is an authorised transfer of the already approved B2, with a new transfer reference and a fresh acknowledgement for that row. Retain the B1 receipt as the history of the error. Do not relabel B1 as B2 or replace the old entry so that the original discrepancy disappears.

If the sender instead says B1 and B2 are merely different labels for the same artifact, request evidence connecting the received item to the approved one. Until the responsible artwork owner confirms that relationship, leave the row unresolved. The worksheet cannot settle identity by majority opinion or a more confident email.

Give each discrepancy to the right decision owner

A missing attachment normally calls for a transfer correction within the existing approval. A claim that the approved file needs alteration calls for a different decision. Record the requested alteration and refer it to the authorised owner; acknowledgement of receipt does not allow the receiver to approve a new revision.

Ask the production contact to confirm how the identified obsolete artifact will be prevented from being selected for this job under its agreed process. Do not promise that it has been deleted everywhere or impose an unagreed retention policy. If the affected work may already have begun, obtain its actual state from the responsible contact and refer the consequence to the buyer’s decision owner. Resending B2 cannot establish what was used earlier.

Close only the file receipt question

Technical checks can supply useful additional evidence while answering a different question. Adobe documents that InDesign’s live preflight can flag missing fonts, modified links and other production issues. Its checks depend on configuration. Adobe preflight guidance This does not establish that a checked document is the buyer’s approved artifact, and no particular software is required by this receipt method.

Close the receipt when every required surface has an attributable received-artifact match, the preview relationships are understood and any remaining access issue is explicitly assigned. State exactly what the acknowledgement establishes. Actual printing, physical sample acceptance and batch quality remain supported by their own evidence; the receipt adds no production authorisation.

For an initial gift quote enquiry, describe the gift and requested handover scope and use supported image references where helpful. Use PNG, JPEG, WebP or GIF files for those image references. Arrange any original production-artwork transfer separately with an authorised contact; do not treat the general enquiry form as an original-file repository.