Product information / Across the seven stages
Give every product handoff a reviewed record.
Keep the supplied attributes, proposed changes and destination requirements together. See what is ready to review, and what still needs evidence.
An illustrative workflow, with no account connected. Agree availability, access and delivery before starting a connected pilot.
Illustrative record · no account connected
Follow one variant through the review.
Illustrative sample date: 3 October 2026. All values and references were created for this view.
- Title
- Top
- Variant
- ZIP-01-SAGE-M
- Color
- Sage
- Composition
- Not supplied
- Source reference
- CAT-001 · sample record
- Locale / revision
- en-GB / r01 · sample
Illustrative local example · no classification service
Review the category behind the product.
A product label, a category path and a sales-channel mapping answer different questions. Explore three fictional records before deciding what needs a reviewer.
Supplied source
- Record ID
- TAX-01
- Supplied title
- Crew-neck T-shirt
- Supplied description
- Short sleeves; described by supplier as a T-shirt. Blue.
- Source
- Fictional supplier note
- Taxonomy context
- Example taxonomy v1
Attributes, separate from category
- Color: blue
- Material: unknown
Proposed path
Apparel / Tops / T-shirts
APP > TOP > TEE
- Supporting evidence
- The supplied note explicitly names a T-shirt and short sleeves.
- Missing evidence
- Material composition and exact-variant confirmation are not supplied.
- Internal proposal status
- Proposal available · not reviewed
Example destination
These are invented example taxonomies, not marketplace specifications.
- Taxonomy context
- Example taxonomy v1
- Destination status
- Proposal available · not reviewed
Reviewer question
Does the supplier record identify this exact variant?
Human review still required
TAX-01: Proposal available · not reviewed
Why can the category remain unresolved?
Descriptions can be incomplete, several paths may fit, or the destination may not contain a matching category. A model score would not remove those gaps.
Human review pending
See which language a value belongs to
A filled preview is not proof of a supplied target-language value. Compare the source, target and proposal before preparing a handoff.
Choose a fictional product record
These three local examples change only the evidence being inspected. They do not translate, save or publish a product.
Example controls are preparing.
EX-ITEM-01 · EX-LOCALE-01 · v1
Keep interface and content language separate
Page language changes the labels. The English source and German target values keep their recorded language in both versions of this page.
- Current source revision
- EX-TITLE-v1
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#sourceRevision
- Source language
- en
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#sourceLocale
- Supplied source title
- Overshirt
- en
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#sourceValue
- Target language
- de
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#targetLocale
- Supplied target title
- Überhemd
- de
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#targetValue
- Target references source revision
- EX-TITLE-v1
- Fictional field source: EX-LOCALE-01#targetBasedOn
Read the target value before the preview
An absent target value stays absent. A fallback preview is separately labeled with its source; it must not fill the target record silently.
- Separate fallback preview
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#fallbackValue
- Fallback source revision
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#fallbackFrom
Check the source revision
A proposal based on an older source needs a new review. Do not treat matching words or a populated field as approval.
- Proposed target title
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#proposalValue
- Proposal references source revision
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#proposalBasedOn
Prepare the review question
Keep the unresolved language or revision question with the record. The named reviewer and approval remain unknown in these examples.
- Named reviewer
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#reviewer
- Approval record
- Not supplied
- Fictional field source: No source supplied
- EX-LOCALE-01#approval
Target supplied; approval unknown
The supplied German title references the current source revision. This does not establish translation quality or approval.
Ask the responsible reviewer to check meaning and product claims.
Example controls are preparing.
Return to the handoff requirements
Confirm the destination language, source evidence and review responsibility before any separate transfer decision. Nothing is sent here.
Review connection planningFrom a supplied record to a clear handoff.
Review workflow illustration · no active synchronization
- 01
Collect
Keep the source reference, product key and revision with the supplied record.
- 02
Structure
Separate product and variant attributes, assets and language. Preserve missing values.
- 03
Review
A person checks proposed changes against their evidence and records unresolved questions.
- 04
Prepare the handoff
Check the agreed destination requirements. Delivery is a separate, permissioned step.
Keep the context that makes a field useful.
- Identity and variant
- Use stable keys so the same style, color and size can be traced across revisions.
- Attributes
- Distinguish supplied, proposed and reviewed values. Unknown is different from zero or false.
- Media
- Keep the asset reference, usage rights and approval state alongside the record.
- Language
- Record the locale and who reviewed the translation. A translation does not verify a product claim.
- Source
- Keep a reference to the authorized source and identify the evidence behind a proposed change.
- Revision
- Preserve the previous value and the reason for a change so the next reviewer can follow it.
One product. Different questions at each destination.
A product page and a marketplace listing can need different information. Agree the actual schema with the destination owner; the examples above use generic requirements.
- 01The market and language for the handoff
- 02Required attributes and how missing values are handled
- 03Approved assets and permission to use them
- 04The review owner, validation method and delivery scope
Give an unresolved field an owner.
Composition is missing
- Review owner
- Product or sourcing team
- Next check
- Request the approved composition record. Do not infer fiber content from an image.
Variant identity conflicts
- Review owner
- Catalog owner
- Next check
- Compare the source key, color and size before combining records.
An image is rejected
- Review owner
- Content owner
- Next check
- Check the asset, rights and the agreed destination requirement before proposing a replacement.
Start with one authorized sample.
Bring a sample product and variant, the source of its attributes, the intended destination and a named reviewer. Agree access and acceptance criteria before any connection or publishing is enabled.
Which source systems can we use?
Start with the source and fields you need. The integration directory describes planning scope; confirm availability, permissions and setup for your account.
What happens to a missing value?
Keep it explicitly unknown, with an owner and the evidence needed to resolve it. A proposed attribute must remain separate from an approved one.
How are translations reviewed?
Agree the target locale and a qualified reviewer. Check the meaning and product claims against the approved source; automatic translation alone is not approval.
Does this page publish a product?
No. Its controls switch between local examples. It does not connect an account, save a record, approve a change or send data to a destination.