Case Studies
Each engagement below opened on a number the client could not argue with — a landed cost, a defect rate, a failed lab test. Here is the change made on the floor, and what the same number read after.
Engagement record Verified
Landed cost
Fashion label · FPP restructure
−27.6%
On-time delivery
EU outerwear · Q3 manifests
99.2%
Daily rework
One line · stage-gated QC
8% → 0%
All Engagements
Every card opens the published article behind it. Filter by the problem the project started with.
Showing 12 of 12 engagements
No engagements in that focus yet. Clear the filter to see all twelve.
Across All Twelve Engagements
Read the post-mortems side by side and four levers keep turning up. Only one of them is about price.
Freight, duty and material yield priced into one figure before the run starts. In CS 01 that matrix cut landed cost 27.6% after the cheap quote lost margin.
Development, QC and shipping share one floor and one sign-off. In CS 03 that closed three silos and held 99.2% on-time delivery across Q3 manifests.
Numbers here carry the test they were measured against. CS 04’s chain-of-custody checks landed 86% stronger tear resistance with zero customs exceptions.
Same line, same fabric source, same release protocol on the pilot as on the reorder. In CS 06 that stage-gated system took daily rework 8% to zero.
How the Engagements Run
All twelve records followed the same four stages. Timings are the standard ones; heavy goods such as outerwear and denim run longer.
Reading the Records
The opening line is always the figure the client could not argue with, then the same path follows: what was measured at intake, what changed on the floor, and what that measurement read afterwards. In CS 06 it is a daily rework rate that started at 8%; in CS 01, cost per piece after freight and duty. The number at the top of a card is the one that appeared in that engagement’s own post-mortem.
The 98% on-time figure quoted elsewhere on this site is an aggregate across all orders. A record here quotes what was measured on that engagement — CS 03 ran 99.2% on-time delivery against Q3 manifests with no major faults at release. The two are not meant to reconcile; they describe different scopes.
The failures are usually the starting line. CS 07 opened with a 5,000-piece restock that began on premium blanks and ended on the cutting floor before cost per tee moved $18 to $11. CS 06 was a system rebuilt after a fabric tension error ruined a 500-piece batch. A highlight reel alone would not tell you anything about the next run.
Yes — that is what they are for. Send the closest comparable garment and the team will map a target landed cost, defect tolerance and lead time against the relevant engagement, then tell you which of the four levers (cost, compliance, speed, quality) is likely to move first.
Almost every run shown started at 100 pieces per design per colour. Several were pilots for exactly that reason — CS 08 and CS 10 both launched at 100 because the brand wanted to test a category before committing volume. CS 07 is the outlier at 5,000, and it sits here because it shows what the same floor does at scale.
Yes. A record names the standard its figure came from — AQL 2.5 major and 4.0 minor sampling under ISO 2859-1, ISO 5077 for dimensional stability, ISO 105 for colourfastness, ISO 12945-2 for pilling, and ASTM D1424 for tear strength. CS 04’s 86% tear-resistance gain and CS 12’s grade 4–5 pilling result were both measured against those standards. These are test standards, not certifications, and are described as such.
Send the garment, the shortfall, or the spec that failed. The reply names which lever moves first — and what it should read after.
Start typing to find articles
No articles found
Try a different keyword
