Built by Noorflows (noorflows.com) for Streetwear Classy. Working system, running on demo data. Every order, customer, style and piece count is invented.
Fabric is 60 to 70 per cent of what a garment costs. The standard measure of production waste, the cut-to-ship ratio, begins counting after the fabric has already been cut — which is why a practitioner argument calls it "an incomplete judge". In their worked case the sewing floor showed 4.8 per cent loss, and adding the cutting room revealed roughly 10 per cent overall.
So this starts at the roll. Fabric bought, fabric laid, pieces cut, pieces packed — one balance sheet, and at every step the same two questions: how much is missing, and did anybody write down why.
And separately, on one lot every metre is accounted for and the garment still takes 0.60 m more fabric than the costing assumed. Nothing is missing and nobody has done anything wrong. On a long run that is the larger number of the two, and it never appears on a floor report precisely because no metre is unexplained.
Consumption is only reported when it is over the costing by more than three per cent and more than five centimetres. A percentage alone waves through a large garment; a flat floor alone flags every small one.
It stays in metres, never money. What a metre is worth depends on the contract, and a floor system is not where that lives.
It reconciles every cut ticket from the cutting table to the packing bench. A cut ticket says 500 pieces went onto the floor; the packing bench counted 464. Both numbers exist in every system on the market, on two different screens. What none of them puts in front of you is the 36 in between, and the split inside it.
The two are never added together. Putting them in one total would make a normal week look like a disaster and bury the only figure worth acting on.
2920 + 38 + 64 + 300 − 12 = 3310, which is the number cut. The sum is printed on the page rather than described, because a page a reader can disprove with mental arithmetic is a page whose other numbers stop counting.
It is deliberately not a "we reduced your losses by this much" figure. We have not reduced anybody's loss and could not measure it if we had.
Seven problems were planted deliberately and seven ordinary situations were planted just as deliberately — a fabric fault written off with a reason, a lot still on the shelf, a garment a few centimetres over plan and inside the allowance, a ticket with rejects written off at QC, a stage that recorded its own rejects, a ticket still on the floor, and a box holding pieces from three tickets that are all the same dye batch. The tracker found 7 of 7 and flagged 0 of 7.
The second group matters more than the first. A floor loses pieces and metres every day; a tracker that shouts about routine rejects and roll tails is one the floor stops reading by Wednesday, and then it is not there for the ones that matter.
Fabric is dyed in batches, and two batches of the same colour are not the same colour. Under factory lights nobody can tell; laid side by side in a shop the difference is obvious and the delivery comes back. Every piece involved is sound, which is exactly why a system built around counting defects cannot see it at all.
The tracker reports two cases: one box holding more than one dye batch, and — the case a per-box rule misses entirely — a single customer's order split across batches where every individual box is internally consistent. Those boxes get opened together.
It reports the mix and never judges it. Plenty of buyers accept mixed lots across a bulk order and say so in the contract. That is a commercial decision and it is not ours.
Demo data throughout. No real production record has been copied into this system, including for testing. The interactive version · How this handles your data