Causes of Proofreading Errors 5 – Not Checking Multiple Instances of the Same Information

Causes of Proofreading Errors 5 – Not Checking Multiple Instances of the Same Information

Packaging artwork often contains multiple instances of the same information. For example, the product name and strength will often appear on multiple faces of a carton, or will be stated many times within a leaflet.

Many recalls have occurred because one or more instances of this information were correct, but others were not. For example, it is easy to imagine how this sort of mistake can be made by an individual who verifies one instance of the information is correct and then assumes the other instances are the same.

Therefore, we would recommend that proofreading methods explicitly require all instances of the same information to verify as correct whilst proofreading activity is being performed.

Furthermore, we would also recommend that critical information such as product name and strength are checked across all artworks of the same finished product to ensure that these are also the same.

This is the fifth of a series of 15 blogs giving a view of the causes of proof reading errors. Please help me improve the thinking by adding your comments and share this with others who may have a view. To obtain an e-copy of our Top 15 Causes of Proof Reading Errors booklet, go to www.be4ward.com.

Comment ( 1 )

  • I would suggest that rather than requiring and relying on repetitive proof reading field by field by the “human inspector” that instead the data source is properly managed, approved, and version controlled. So then utilizing that data with proper solution design logic so that based on a key data attribute, these fields will be linked to the version controlled data source and thus populate with the correct and approved data across all field where that common data will be displayed. Bottom line, whenever repetitive actions, manual actions, and reliance upon human perfection can be eliminated from the process the opportunity for risk is significantly deminidhed.

Post a Reply