Resolve a source-file disagreement by tracing the exact approved artwork revision through the studio's print-ready conversion and production record—not by trusting the newest-looking filename. The latest-looking filename is not necessarily the file that was approved. A reliable investigation traces the exact approved version through handoff, proofing and print preparation, then compares it with what the printer actually used. This is a version-control problem before it becomes an accusation of poor workmanship. Preserve originals and correspondence so the sequence can be reconstructed rather than rewritten.
Establish the authoritative approval event
Find the final signed-off proof, its date, the person authorized to approve it and any agreed production-specific instructions. The approved reference may be a PDF proof, a flattened image, or a file with separate crop guides; identify which artifact was the actual approval target. Record both the filename and its storage location. If the designer sent several versions labeled 'final,' 'final2' and 'final-revised,' do not treat the largest number or newest timestamp as proof of authorization without the related communication.
Match the signed-off reference to the artwork's substantive content: subject placement, colors, wording, signature, orientation and image proportions. A thumbnail or screenshot can help locate differences, but may not carry embedded profiles or precise crop coordinates. Note any authorized changes made after sign-off and whether they required renewed approval. A studio may have received an update by email that never reached the production folder, or it may have reused a cached export; either scenario should be investigated through actual records, not presumed.
An illustrator approves version 12 with a corrected flower color, but the finished canvas looks like version 11. The studio has files named 'FINAL', 'FINAL2' and a raster export generated later than both. Compare content-based landmarks in those files, retrieve the dated approval message and identify which version was actually delivered to the print queue. A later file timestamp alone does not prove approval. Document whether the discrepancy comes from the source choice, a converted derivative or an authorized production adjustment before proposing another run.
Reconcile source, derivative and production files
Ask the printer for the file identifier, date, dimensions, embedded profile, crop/bleed settings and revision information of the actual print-ready asset, along with any transformation performed during preparation. Where systems permit it, a checksum or content hash can uniquely identify identical file bytes; keep that alongside the version name in the handoff record. A different checksum does not by itself prove an unauthorized change because export settings or metadata may differ. Inspect the files' visible content and the documented purpose of each derivative as well.
Distinguish an artist master from a printing derivative. Flattening layers, converting color space or adding edge wrap can legitimately create a new file with a different technical identity while retaining the approved visual intent. Conversely, a file with the right name can contain old text or the wrong crop. Compare the relevant visible features and production guide, not merely filenames. For unusual products or wrap depth, the producer must provide the actual dimensions rather than relying on a generic template.
Document the discrepancy and establish a correction path
Prepare a table listing the approved master, delivered proof, print-ready file and finished canvas, with versions, dates, owners and the differences that matter. Annotate whether the issue lies in the text, image content, orientation, color handling or finished front area. For geometry, add measured distances to edges; for color, use an appropriate physical proof and controlled viewing rather than a phone screenshot as conclusive evidence. Describe who approved each transition. Preserve the superseded assets so a later reviewer can audit the process.
Ask the responsible parties to explain the source-file chain and recommend a documented remedy, such as a corrected derivative or new proof. Do not overwrite the original to make it match the delivered print, and do not promise a remake until actual merchant terms and production feasibility are checked. Confirm which revision becomes authoritative for the next run. A concise version history can prevent the same mistake in a future replacement, especially when several art directors or operators touch the project.
The correct source version is the one traceable to the actual approval and production handoff. Filenames and timestamps help, but they should be corroborated by the approved artwork, recorded derivatives and the finished object's measurable appearance.