Compare labels, packaging artwork and forms against your approved reference. Review text and visual differences with side-by-side evidence, then record your team’s decision.
Built for a reviewer-led decision, from approved master to proof or captured sample.
Acceptance: Verify seal, identifier, quantity and transport conditions before release to the laboratory workflow.
Acceptance: Verify seal, identifier, quantity and transport conditions before release to the laboratory workflow.
The document changes, but the question stays the same: what differs from the approved reference, and what evidence does the reviewer need to decide?
Bring attention to changed text, values and visual elements without asking reviewers to reread two full documents line by line.
Example: laboratory form or medical-kit insert
Compare a new label, carton or proof with the approved artwork and keep the relevant before-and-after evidence together.
Example: food, supplement or consumer-product pack
Evaluate the capture setup during a supervised pilot before using it to compare printed material with the intended reference.
Example: received labels, leaflets or cartons
Review a supplier proof with specific visual evidence, then communicate the accepted or rejected change through your controlled process.
Example: pre-press proof and revised artwork
ProofsCheck supports the common review path while keeping the final decision with your team.
Choose the approved reference, then add the supplier proof, revised artwork or captured printed sample to be reviewed.
Inspect text and visual differences side by side. Capture quality and document complexity can affect results, so reviewer verification remains essential.
Confirm the outcome in your controlled workflow and retain the relevant reference, findings and review evidence with the decision.
Explore fictional examples across a dense form, a label and carton artwork. These demonstrations explain the review pattern; they are not live engine outputs.
Demonstration only — fictional data and deliberately planted differences.
Confirm label identity, seal integrity, supporting record and calculated yield before disposition.
Confirm label identity, seal integrity, supporting record and calculated yield before disposition.
Ingredients: whole grain oats, date paste, sunflower oil, almonds, sea salt.
Contains: almonds.
Ingredients: whole grain oats, date paste, sunflower oil, almonds, sea salt.
Allergen statement omitted
For professional collection use. Follow the enclosed instructions before opening the sterile components.
Contents: 10 collection tubes · 10 swabs · 10 specimen bags · 10 instruction leaflets
For professional collection use. Follow the enclosed instructions before opening the sterile components.
Contents: 10 collection tubes · 8 swabs · 10 specimen bags · 10 instruction leaflets
A useful review record explains what was compared and what the reviewer decided. Reference history helps teams avoid approving against an outdated master.
ProofsCheck exists to make document review clearer. It brings an approved reference, the new proof or sample, and the relevant differences into one evidence-led workflow so a person can make and record the decision.
It is designed for teams working with labels, packaging artwork, forms and printed materials—where a changed value, omitted line or shifted element deserves attention before approval or release.
The public website does not accept document uploads. Current demos and evaluations must use non-PHI material, and application handling details should be agreed before a supervised pilot.
Read Security & PrivacyDo not send confidential files or regulated records through the website enquiry flow.
Comparison findings support review; they do not make the accountable release decision.
PHI support is not currently available. Do not upload or send protected health information.
Confirm access, processors, retention and deletion arrangements for the intended pilot workflow.
The intended workflow covers labels, packaging artwork, forms, supplier proofs and captured printed-material samples. File formats, page limits and complex-document suitability should be confirmed for the specific supervised pilot rather than assumed universally.
No. It is designed to surface potential text and visual differences with context. A responsible reviewer verifies the evidence, follows the organization’s procedure and records the decision.
No comparison process should be presented as infallible. Results depend on the documents, capture quality and review scope. ProofsCheck supports human review; it does not remove the need for it.
That workflow can be evaluated, but lighting, focus, resolution, perspective, folds and print condition all affect comparison quality. Physical-device compatibility and the capture setup need qualification during a supervised pilot.
No. PHI support is not currently available. Current demos and evaluations use non-PHI documents. See the HIPAA readiness section for the current boundary.
Book a demo to discuss a scoped, supervised evaluation around your documents and review process. Pilot duration, pricing and commercial terms are agreed for the specific engagement; the website does not promise fixed terms.
Tell the ProofsCheck team what your reviewers compare today. We can discuss a scoped, supervised pilot using appropriate non-PHI demonstration material.
Do not include documents, sensitive production data, patient-identifiable information or protected health information in this enquiry.