The word “waterproof” can travel farther than the model record it started with. It may be copied from an earlier colour box, carried into a retailer spreadsheet or paired with a new accessory layout. That is a packaging-control problem, not a reason to broaden the claim. Start by asking a narrow question: which selected model, which artwork version and which supporting record are being compared?
This close-up illustrates abdominal grooming context. The selected model record, artwork and supporting evidence must still be checked separately before a packaging claim is approved.
1 — Find the exact word before judging the product
First copy the proposed waterproof wording exactly as it appears on the box, product listing or artwork proof. Beside it, record the selected model code and artwork revision. A word that looks familiar may have come from an earlier project, a broad product-family description or a translation that has not yet been approved for the destination market.
The public YH-7262 product record identifies one Body Trimmer IPX7 model and lists an IPX7 waterproof rating. It also lists a 3.7 V 600 mAh battery, `5 V=1 A` input, 50-minute working time and 90-minute charging time. Those are catalogue fields for that record. They do not by themselves approve a retail sentence, a cleaning instruction, an accessory statement or a market-specific claim.
2 — Compare three records, not one generic product description
Use the product record, the approved artwork and the project evidence file as three separate sources. The useful outcome is not “approved” or “rejected” in the abstract; it is a short discrepancy note that says which source needs correction or confirmation.
| Compare | What to capture | Do not infer |
|---|
