In this guide
Use render approval to confirm the intended appearance and selected configuration. Use a physical production-sample review to confirm the specified fit, construction, setting and finish questions. Record those decisions separately so a beautiful image does not become an ambiguous instruction to manufacture.
Both decisions need the same product identity. If the stone, size or component changes between render and sample, identify the new configuration before comparing results.
Define the first decision
For appearance review, agree the views, source revision, stone identity or placeholder status, metal appearance and intended proportions. Keep camera and lighting conditions recorded where they affect comparison. Ask the client for specific decisions rather than a general “looks good.”
| Review | Can establish | Needs a separate check |
|---|---|---|
| Render | Intended silhouette and selected appearance | Physical fit and construction |
| Source geometry | Supplied features and dimensions | Actual process result |
| Physical sample | Observed result under the specified review | Unperformed production or durability tests |
| Final release | Authorized scope and files | Unresolved or changed configurations |
GIA’s ring-sizing benchmark describes actual sizing considerations and tools.1 That illustrates why fit is a specific physical task, not a conclusion drawn from how large a ring looks on a rendered hand.
State what remains open after render approval
List sample questions such as finger fit, setting relationships, closure access, finished surface and any agreed inspection. Assign each to the responsible bench or process reviewer. Avoid repeated disclaimers; one clear scope record is more useful than vague caution around every image.
If the client changes size after appearance approval, identify the affected geometry and repeat the relevant views. Keep the stone geometry and protected interfaces intact through the controlled resizing process.
Compare the sample with the actual baseline
Record sample identity, source revision and process route. Use corresponding views to discuss appearance differences, and the specified measurement or bench method for physical questions. A lighting difference should not be mistaken for an alloy change; a measured fit problem should not be dismissed as a photographic difference.
Classify findings: wrong configuration, geometry discrepancy, material interpretation, process outcome or changed preference. Each classification points to a different correction and reviewer.
Turn corrections into a traceable revision
Keep the original approval, proposed change, revised source and retest result. If the bench modifies the piece, capture the relevant information for repeat production rather than leaving the CAD obsolete. For stone-related changes, use the seat measurement handoff.
The two-stage approval sheet records appearance decisions and sample findings separately. It does not pre-authorize production. The Rendora jewelry workflow connects supplied source files with review evidence and downloadable handoff records.
Questions at approval time
Does client appearance approval authorize tooling or casting?
State the authorized action explicitly. Approval of views alone should not be interpreted as completion of every manufacturing check.
Can a sample decision cover a whole range?
Identify which configurations and features it represents. New stones, sizes or construction changes can require additional review.
References
- GIA, Accurate determination of finger and ring sizes, reviewed October 26, 2026.
About this guide
Rendora publishes practical guides for teams working with configurable 3D assets and traceable production handoffs. Updated October 27, 2026.