Keep each source image, edited output, and actual SKU identifier together in a controlled naming ledger, then inspect the image itself before upload. Filenames help route files but cannot prove that the pictured variant is correct. For similar products, compare distinguishing details against the source and catalog record, and hold any ambiguous mapping for review rather than guessing.
Make a ledger the handoff point
Use a consistent record that connects an actual product identifier to its source file, edited output, and review status. A personal spreadsheet or written ledger is enough if it is kept up to date and used at each handoff. Use identifiers from your own catalog, not shortened nicknames that might mean different things to different people.
Fictional planning example — Two Similar Bottle Caps: a seller has two cap variants with nearly the same shape, but one has a different finish or small structural detail. An output saved beside the correct-looking filename may still show the other variant. The filename points to the intended item; it does not verify the visual contents.
Decision checkpoint 1: does every source and output have one unambiguous, actual SKU identifier in the ledger? If not, pause and resolve the mapping before editing or uploading. If you use Imagild, review its current Skill catalog and source/result examples, and check the controls currently available. Do not assume an inventory or SKU-matching integration exists.
Move each source through a controlled sequence
- Select the source image for one SKU and record its exact filename and identifier in the ledger before creating an edited version. Keep similar variants in separate, clearly identified work groups.
- Name the output so its relationship to the source and intended SKU is easy to trace. Record that relationship in the ledger too; do not treat a filename as a substitute for the record.
- Review the output beside its source and the relevant catalog reference. Compare the details that distinguish this item from its nearest variant, not just the general product shape.
- Mark the mapping ready only after a person checks both the visual identity and the source-to-output record. Put unclear files aside for review instead of assigning them by guesswork.
Review image identity as well as its name
Choose visible identifiers that genuinely distinguish the variants: finish, shape, cap structure, color, or another feature shown in the source and catalog record. Check whether the edit has altered or obscured those details. A polished result can still be the wrong variant, and a similar filename can make that error harder to notice.
Decision checkpoint 2: can you point to a visible feature that matches the intended SKU and differs from the neighboring variant? If the relevant feature is hidden or ambiguous, do not approve the output on the strength of its filename. Keep the source, output, and reference together during the comparison so the identity check is direct.
Release only a complete source-output match
Before upload, trace each selected output back through the ledger to its source and actual identifier. Confirm that the file’s visible variant matches the same identifier in the catalog record. Decision checkpoint 3: if any step in that chain is missing, duplicated, or uncertain, hold the file. This review catches both a naming mix-up and a visually wrong edit; neither check can replace the other.
Can I trust a filename if it contains the right SKU?
No. It records the intended destination, not what the image depicts. Compare the output with its source and product reference.
What should I do with an ambiguous output?
Keep it out of the upload set until its source and visible variant can be confirmed. Do not infer the SKU from a similar-looking filename.
Does a ledger need an inventory integration?
No. A controlled personal record can connect files and identifiers, but it does not automatically verify image contents.