Correcting template errors found during proof review

Found a template error during a proof review that the vendor had not noticed. The experience taught me both what to look for and how to communicate a correction effectively.

What I found

The ghost image on the proof was positioned approximately 3mm too high relative to where it should appear on the genuine state template. This is the kind of detail that requires a reference image of a real card to catch — I compared the proof against a photo of a genuine license from the same state and the offset was clear. Without that reference, I might have approved the proof and received a card with the error.

How I communicated the correction

Generic feedback ("the ghost image is in the wrong place") is hard for vendors to act on. I sent a message with my order number, a screenshot of the proof with an annotation indicating where the ghost image was positioned, and a reference photo from a genuine card with an annotation showing the correct position. I noted the approximate millimeter offset between the two.

The vendor confirmed the error within four hours and sent a corrected proof two days later. The correction was exactly what I had indicated.

Types of template errors to watch for

During proof review, systematically compare each element against a reference: field positions relative to card edges, ghost image placement, color scheme accuracy, font size and weight for data fields, and any state-specific design elements that should appear in specific zones. Measurement is more reliable than impression — "this looks about right" is less useful than "this element is positioned correctly relative to the border."

Template errors that a vendor accepts responsibility for are corrected without charge in almost all cases. The proof is specifically designed to catch these before production — it is the intended mechanism, and using it thoroughly is what it is there for.