Why did sample #63 fail?21 Aug 01:42
Sample #63 is S 9076 Batch No 63 (Amber liquid), tested by application (ink base evaluation) on 04.05.2026 / completed 05.05.2026 by Mr. Mohan Yadav.
Why it failed: Overall verdict Not OK — *"Gloss and Re-solubility inferior"* to the same-run reference standard BYK 9076. Two shades were evaluated in Ink Base – Nitrocellulose Polyurethane, Finalux 108:
Everything else matched or passed: Grinding < 5 µm (Ref < 5 µm), Colour Shade as per Std, Transparency Opaque, Adhesion (Tape Test) Pass, Separation No, Settling No.
So the driving defect is Re-solubility (rated 2 vs 4) in both shades, plus a Gloss shortfall in Violet 23 (55.7 vs 66.4).
Note: these are measured FOIL values compared against the same-day BYK 9076 reference-standard run in the same report — they are not vendor target numbers.
Why it failed: Overall verdict Not OK — *"Gloss and Re-solubility inferior"* to the same-run reference standard BYK 9076. Two shades were evaluated in Ink Base – Nitrocellulose Polyurethane, Finalux 108:
- Violet 23: Gloss @ 60° = 55.7 (Ref Standard 66.4); Re-solubility rating 2 (Ref Standard 4) → both inferior. Color Strength 98-99 (Ref 100.00); Viscosity 22 s (Ref 21 s).
- Violet 27: Gloss @ 60° = 8.1 (Ref Standard 7.8, i.e. not inferior here); Re-solubility rating 2 (Ref Standard 4) → inferior. Color Strength 100.00 (Ref 100.00); Viscosity 20 s (Ref 19 s).
Everything else matched or passed: Grinding < 5 µm (Ref < 5 µm), Colour Shade as per Std, Transparency Opaque, Adhesion (Tape Test) Pass, Separation No, Settling No.
So the driving defect is Re-solubility (rated 2 vs 4) in both shades, plus a Gloss shortfall in Violet 23 (55.7 vs 66.4).
Note: these are measured FOIL values compared against the same-day BYK 9076 reference-standard run in the same report — they are not vendor target numbers.
Sources
confidence: high