An approval email may refer to attached photographs, a marked sample sheet or a final specification that never reaches every recipient. The words approved as attached are not enough when the attachment is missing, unreadable or unrelated to the sample being released. Procurement should reconcile the evidence package before turning that message into a production instruction. This guide concerns missing or incomplete attachments, not who has authority to approve or how to choose between competing design revisions.
Read the decision and its dependencies
Identify exactly what the message relies on
List the files, images, sample references and linked records mentioned in the approval message. Note which ones define the approved result and which provide background only. The approval authority matrix still determines whether the sender can make the decision; attachment completeness is an additional requirement, not a substitute for authority. Keep the original message and its date with the project record.
Watch for references that do not name a file clearly, such as the marked picture or the updated sheet. Ask the authorized sender to identify the intended evidence rather than having production choose the most plausible document in a shared folder. A familiar filename is not proof that it was the attachment considered by the approver. Record that uncertainty until it is resolved.
- List every referenced approval attachment.
- Separate controlling evidence from background files.
- Confirm the sender's applicable authority.
- Flag vague or unnamed references.
Confirm receipt and usability
A visible filename does not establish a complete file
Check that the intended recipients received the relevant files and can open them through the project's approved systems. Confirm that pages, comments and images needed for the decision are actually present. Do not bypass access controls, use another person's credentials or upload confidential sample records to an unapproved service merely to open a file. Ask the record owner to restore appropriate access through the normal route.
Compare the attachment inventory with the technical-pack contents. If a file refers onward to a missing drawing or measurement sheet, record that dependency too. Keep sensitive buyer information in the approved project storage. Screenshots of a filename or an email icon do not establish that the complete document was received and reviewed by production.
- Confirm files can be opened by intended recipients.
- Check necessary pages and annotations.
- Record missing downstream references.
- Restore access through approved channels only.
Match evidence to the physical sample
Keep identity separate from visual similarity
Reconcile the file's sample code, product variant and revision with the item under approval. Use the version-control record for artwork and the physical sample reference for the approved product. A photograph of a similar pillowcase cannot silently stand in for the identified sample if its closure, size or material differs from the one being released.
Where the attachment lacks an identity, obtain confirmation from the authorized record owner. Do not add a guessed sample code and circulate the file as corrected evidence. Preserve the original and connect any clarified version through the project's revision process. This protects the reasoning behind the decision and prevents later recipients from mistaking an administrative assumption for the buyer's actual approval.
- Match product, sample and revision identifiers.
- Separate physical and artwork references.
- Seek confirmation for unidentified evidence.
- Preserve originals alongside controlled clarifications.
Obtain a complete confirmation
Resolve the gap before the dependent release
Send a concise discrepancy request naming the missing or unusable item and the decision it affects. Ask the authorized approver to confirm the complete attachment set and any scope limitation. Avoid requesting a vague repeat of approved, which may leave the original ambiguity untouched. The release-control process should show which production step remains dependent on that confirmation.
If an unaffected part of the project can proceed under an existing valid release, keep its scope explicit; do not infer partial authorization from silence. A later attachment may clarify the original decision or change it, and those are different events. Record which applies and route a genuine change through the proper approval process rather than backdating it into the earlier email. Use a short attachment inventory with one row per controlling item: what the message calls it, what was received, which sample it represents and whether it is usable by the intended recipient. This is not another approval signature; it is a way to expose gaps before release. For example, a measurement sheet may be present while the marked photograph it cites is absent. Recording both rows prevents the complete sheet from masking the missing visual reference. Keep the inventory alongside the final confirmation so future reviewers can reconstruct how the evidence gap was actually closed.
- Name the exact missing evidence.
- Request confirmation of the complete set.
- Identify the dependent production step.
- Distinguish clarification from a new change.
Issue a reconciled handoff
Give production one inspectable evidence package
The final handoff should list the controlling message, the confirmed files, their revisions and the physical sample reference. Record who checked completeness and when, without claiming that this administrative check replaces technical approval. Connect the package to the pre-production handoff so the factory can inspect the same evidence that purchasing considers released instead of relying on fragments from several inboxes.
Retain the closed discrepancy alongside the package and keep unresolved items visible. When requesting future sample reviews, ask reviewers to identify attachments explicitly and state the decision scope in the message. Share the sample identity and required decision with the sourcing team early; a clear evidence request reduces the chance that an otherwise useful review ends in a production instruction nobody can verify.
- List the confirmed controlling files.
- Link the physical sample and decision scope.
- Record the completeness check separately from approval.
- Preserve resolved and open discrepancy history.
Do not release work that depends on an absent or unidentified approval attachment; obtain an authorized, complete evidence package without guessing the missing file or expanding the decision scope.
