Four-Point Grading and Cut Planning for a 200 m Sheeting Roll
A finishing and inspection department audits a 200 m roll of 160 cm wide cotton sheeting before dispatch. The buyer's contract uses the 4-point system with a limit of 20 points per 100 m², no more than one defect longer than 9 inches per roll, a minimum cut length of 50 m and a length tolerance of ±2%. On the inspection table the roll shows 20 defects of 1–3 inches, 8 defects of 3–6 inches, 4 defects of 6–9 inches, 2 defects longer than 9 inches, and one hole 2 inches in diameter. The inspector has marked cuts 0.5 m either side of each long defect. The roll sells at Rs 95/m, a piece under 50 m is discounted 12%, and returning a rejected roll costs about Rs 5,000 in freight and handling. The inspection record must travel with the roll and the buyer audits the mill's grading.
1. Grade the roll under the 4-point system: calculate the total points, the points per 100 m², and state whether the roll passes the buyer's standard.
Read the worked answer
Point assignment (4-point system)
| Defect | Length | Points each | Number | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 1–3 in | 1 | 20 | 20 |
| Medium | 3–6 in | 2 | 8 | 16 |
| Long | 6–9 in | 3 | 4 | 12 |
| Very long | over 9 in | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| Hole | 2 in diameter | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| Total | 60 |
Area and points per 100 m²
- Area = 200 m × 1.60 m = 320 m² = 3.20 hundred m²
- Points per 100 m² = 60/3.20 = 18.75
Verdict
The roll passes the average points limit of 20 per 100 m², but it fails the rule that no roll may carry more than one defect longer than 9 inches, because it has two. The roll is therefore not shippable as it stands, even though the average is under the limit. This is exactly the sort of case where a grader who only checks the average releases a roll that the buyer will reject.
2. Recommend a cut plan. Compare cutting out both long defects with cutting out only one, and state which you would choose and why.
Read the worked answer
Option A: cut out both long defects
- Remove 2 × 1.0 m of allowance = 2.0 m → 198 m remaining in three pieces
- Points fall to 60 − 8 = 52; area = 198 × 1.6 = 316.8 m² = 3.168 hundred m² → 16.4 points/100 m²
- The 198 m must be split into three pieces, all at least 50 m. A workable split is 80 m, 65 m and 53 m, but it depends where the defects lie. If the defects are close together, one piece will fall below 50 m and be discounted 12%.
Option B: cut out only one long defect
- Remove 1.0 m → 199 m in two pieces
- Points fall to 60 − 4 = 56; area = 199 × 1.6 = 318.4 m² = 3.184 hundred m² → 17.6 points/100 m²
- The roll now carries one defect over 9 inches, which meets the buyer's rule.
- Length is within the ±2% tolerance (196–204 m), so the roll can be invoiced as a full roll.
Recommendation
Choose Option B unless the two long defects are so close that one cut removes both without creating a short piece. Option B keeps a full roll length, avoids the 12% discount on a short piece, and still satisfies both the point limit and the one-long-defect rule. Option A only makes sense if the buyer accepts multiple rolls per lot and the remaining pieces stay above 50 m. The cut plan must be drawn on the defect map and signed before the roll is cut, because the decision cannot be reversed afterwards.
3. If the mill ships the roll as inspected without cutting, what is the commercial exposure, and what should the inspection record contain to protect the mill?
Read the worked answer
Commercial exposure
Shipping as inspected means shipping a roll with two defects over 9 inches against a contract limit of one. The likely outcomes, in order of probability:
- The buyer's own audit catches it and the roll is rejected or downgraded. A 200 m roll at Rs 95/m is worth Rs 19,000; a 12% discount costs Rs 2,280, and a return costs about Rs 5,000 plus freight back and lost contribution.
- If the buyer does not catch it, the mill has still shipped non-conforming material. A later claim, or a failed audit of the mill's grading, threatens the whole lot and possibly the account, which is far more expensive than one roll.
- Repeated under-grading also invalidates the mill's own inspection data, so the mill cannot defend itself when a genuine dispute arises.
Sending the roll knowingly is not a commercial judgement; it is a transfer of risk that the mill will lose.
What the record must contain
- Roll number, quality, length, width and date of inspection
- Inspector's name and signature, and the standard used (4-point, 20 points per 100 m²)
- A defect map with position along the roll and across the width, and the point value of each defect
- The points per 100 m² calculation and the pass/fail decision against each contract clause, not just the average
- The cut plan, with lengths of resulting pieces and the reason for each cut
- Any concession or variance agreed with the buyer, in writing
This record is what allows the mill to prove conformity, and it is also the data used to trace the fault back to the loom or the warp.