“Two colours” still does not describe the order
A request says “two-colour logo”, then adds a back print, navy T-shirts and natural-colour ones. Before quoting, separate three things: garment colour, the design colours requested at each location, and the production inks the workshop confirms after checking the artwork. One “2 colours” box cannot settle all three.
This guide proposes a manual AI-assistant trial to prepare that brief from written messages. It includes a fictional case worked through by hand, a prompt and a partial-change test. The assistant does not count separations from an image, select underbases or calculate screens or prices. Production review stays with the screen printer; we have not run this pilot or measured results.
Garment, print location and ink are different decisions
The pages read on 23 October 2026 show which details other workshops request separately. Stampa asks for garment, quantity, locations, inks and date; Contraste asks for garment type, location, design colours and units. These are their public requirements: we have not tested their configurators or placed orders. Our proposed brief extends that separation to messages that conflict or change only part of an order.
Adobe distinguishes premixed spot inks from process colours produced using CMYK. That distinction helps prevent “I can see two colours in the logo” becoming a printing recipe. Keep the customer’s description and leave the technical ink specification to the workshop, using the artwork and relevant references.
LoneStarInk publishes rates for one location and says some dark garments may need an underbase that counts as an additional colour in its pricing. This is that supplier’s condition, rather than a universal rule or an Adaris rate. In this exercise, underbase requirements remain a technical question for each garment variant; they are neither added nor dismissed automatically because of shirt colour.
Prepare the input without asking AI to guess
For each garment variant, record any stated reference, its literal colour description, quantity and requested print locations. Within each location, keep the identified design, its declared colours and dimensions with units where supplied. “Blue” as garment colour and “blue” as an ink belong in different fields. An unreferenced shade must not become an invented ink code.
Keep messages with identifiers and a known sequence. Explain what each change replaces and what remains unresolved; do not assume the latest message replaces everything. Preserve the original artwork for professional review. For this first trial, use only the fictional texts below: do not upload customer designs or personal information without authorisation and suitable terms.
Fictional case: the change affects only twelve backs
PRUEBA-SERI, all its documents and its manual review are invented teaching material. No real artwork, measurements or AI response produced these figures. The cover is an illustrative scene too.
S1 · Complete initial request: “24 T-shirts: 12 navy and 12 natural. All shirts: SOL-r1 design on chest in two declared colours, blue and yellow; LUNA-r1 design on back in one declared colour, blue. Print dimensions and exact ink references have not yet been specified. Please quote; production is not authorised.”
S2 · Later, limited amendment: “Only on the 12 navy T-shirts, remove the back design. Keep everything else in S1.”
T1 · Workshop note after S2: “Artwork and separations not yet reviewed. Production inks, underbase requirements by variant, screens, price and delivery date remain pending. Printing is not authorised.”
Keep S1, S2 and T1; remove the back print only from the navy group. A pending workshop review does not become technical confirmation.
The manual reference brief
The editor prepared this reference to check the trial. Quantities identify garment groups; chest and back rows are not additional batches. Do not add the rows to count the shirts again, or add their declared colours to obtain a technical ink count for the order.
| Garment group | Location | Current request | Technical review and source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 navy | Chest | SOL-r1: blue and yellow declared | Inks and underbase pending · S1 + T1 |
| The same 12 navy | Back | No print requested after S2 | Removed only for this group · S2 |
| 12 natural | Chest | SOL-r1: blue and yellow declared | Inks and underbase pending · S1 + T1 |
| The same 12 natural | Back | LUNA-r1: blue declared | Inks and underbase pending · S1 retained by S2 + T1 |
A prompt for a draft you can check
Try this prompt followed by the complete S1, S2 and T1 texts. Request a short response with one row per group and location. Anthropic’s documentation recommends allowing uncertainty and requesting supporting quotations. These are response-review practices, not a guarantee that this exercise will be accurate.
“Prepare an administrative brief for PRUEBA-SERI using only S1, S2 and T1. Separate garment colour and quantity, location, design identifier, declared colours, confirmed technical inks and unresolved items. Apply S2 only to its stated scope and preserve the rest. Cite the document and phrase supporting each change. Do not count inks, underbases or screens from declared colours; do not invent dimensions, codes, prices, dates or approvals. Distinguish removed from unresolved. Do not add garments repeated across locations. Also return the questions a person must resolve before quoting.”
A useful clarification drafted by hand would be: “Could you specify each design’s size and the desired colour references? The workshop must review the artwork and confirm the inks and any underbase requirements for each variant.” This is an unsent draft question.
Test the difficult amendment before connecting systems
In the base case, check that both groups retain their chest print and the natural shirts retain their back print. If the assistant removes all back prints or enters “confirmed inks: 2”, correct the brief against the documents. The professional must also review the artwork and agree colour references: a coherent brief is not a production-ready job.
For a separate test, add S3 to the previous case: “Actually, make everything one colour.” This fictional message does not clearly identify the designs or groups to change, or which ink to use. The manual reference for this variant holds S3 for clarification, keeps the previous brief visible as a reference and marks the quote pending. It does not apply a global conversion or reinstate the back print removed in S2.
For an initial pilot, prepare these two fictional scenarios and a manual reference for each before testing. Record omitted locations, changes applied to the wrong group, unsupported ink confirmations and total preparation plus review time. Compare with doing the same texts by hand. If scope errors appear, revise the instruction and repeat the comparison; do not connect quoting or production. These are proposed checks, not results or savings percentages.
When custom development makes sense
The manual trial means copying fictional texts and reviewing a response. A connected automation would need to identify the job and its originals, control versions and permissions, separate requests from technical validation, record who approves each change and recover from failures. The workshop software’s actual capabilities would need checking before promising an integration.
Adaris develops custom software, CRM and automation with AI integrated case by case. A quote-preparation brief with these controls could be assessed under an agreed scope. This is not an existing Adaris screen-printing product or a proven automatic quoting tool. If the issue is artwork approval, the print-shop version guide addresses that different need.
Related services
Sources
Are print changes scattered across messages?
Tell us how you prepare quotes and who validates the artwork. A fictional example can help us assess a custom brief or integration with agreed scope and controls. Commercial communication is in Spanish.