How Do I Avoid Re-Wick-Testing My Entire Collection When Only One Fragrance Formula Has Changed?

Your situation, made precise

The worked example, labelled: an approved range of 8 fragrances in one jar, every candle 200 g at 8% (16 g of oil and 184 g of wax, load as a percentage of total weight), most on Eco C2 and the two vanilla formulas on Eco C1 after an earlier soot fix (the two-of-five decision). Your jasmine supplier has discontinued the oil, and you've replaced it with CSI's Jasmine Fragrance Oil at the same 8%. The scent is close. Your instinct, after the trouble you had getting the range approved, is to re-test all eight. That is 48 candles, about 336 candle-sessions of burning, and a 10 kg bag of wax, to re-learn seven answers you already have.

This post owns the change-control logic for wick approvals: the scope (which formulas a change touches), the depth (how much testing each change deserves), bracketing when a shared material changes, and the record. How to test in the production formula in the first place is 6986; the master formula fields that make a where-used list possible are 6996.

Four tiers of change, and what each one re-tests

Two judgement calls sit inside that table. First, "same scent" is not a tier 1 change. A replacement oil that smells nearly identical is still a different composition, and composition is what the wick responds to; the published posts on exactly this are a new supplier with a nearly identical scent profile and one wick across eight fragrances, the shared-wick version. Second, tier 1 is not a free pass. A new lot of an approved oil is usually close to the old one, but CSI publishes no lot-to-lot data, so the confirmation is how you find out. If the confirmation candles differ from the retained candle, the change moves up to tier 2. The fragrance-side lot comparison (cold sniff, colour in wax, a short burn) is comparing a new batch of a bestselling scent.

When a "one-formula" change isn't: causes, ranked

If the retest of the changed formula behaves strangely, or another formula starts misbehaving at the same time, these are the usual reasons, most likely first. The ranking is our judgement; signs are common observations, not CSI burn data.

Cause 1 is why the record matters more than the test. A range that changed its jasmine oil in the same week it opened a new 10 kg bag of wax has had two changes, and the second one is tier 3. If you can't tell from your batch sheets, you can't scope the retest, and then re-testing everything becomes the only honest option. A wick that suddenly struggles half-way down after any change is a full-life question (full-life testing before a big wick order explains why late failures hide).

Bracketing similar oils when a shared material changes

Bracketing is the tier 3 shortcut, and it only works if your range is already grouped (the grouping rule is 6986's). The idea: if a new wax lot from a new source, say, still lets the lightest and the heaviest formula in a group pass on their approved wicks, the formulas between them are very likely to pass too, and a three-candle confirmation is enough to check. If either extreme fails, the whole group goes back on the ladder.

Two cautions. The heavy formulas are never "between" anything: vanilla-rich and dark gourmand oils are the ones most likely to react differently to a shared change, so each is checked on its own. And a range-wide load change is the worst case for bracketing, because it moves every formula at once; the published post on that is switching from 8% to 10% across a collection. For organising the results so the next change is easier to scope, see organising hundreds of burn-test results.

The retest plan for one changed formula

Tier 2, worked example: Jasmine at 8% in the 200 g candle, previously approved on Eco C2 with the old jasmine oil. Candidates: C2 (the approved wick, now the control) and C1 (one rung down), three candles each. Pour a retained candle of the old formula into the comparison if you have one; it costs nothing and tells you whether the new oil moved anything.

The documentation that makes this safe

Two documents do the work. The where-used list answers scope: for every material (each oil and lot, each wax, each wick listing and variant, each jar, each dye) the formulas that use it. It falls straight out of your master formulas if they name exact products and variants (6996 owns that template). The change record answers depth and outcome:

Keep the retained candles and wicks: they are what a tier 1 confirmation compares against next time (6995 covers what to keep and for how long). If you buy oils and wicks from us, ask on WhatsApp how the lot or batch is identified on what you receive and write it on the record; we won't promise that two lots are identical, and the confirmation test is how you find out.

The step to production quantity

If the retest keeps Jasmine on C2, nothing changes in purchasing. If it moves Jasmine to C1, that formula's wick line changes from the effective batch onward. Worked example, labelled: 80 Jasmine candles a month plus 2% is 81 C1 wicks: 50 + 20 + 20 = 90 for ₹531.00; a 100-pack is the same ₹5.90 a wick and ties up ₹59.00 more. Reorder points and the quantity formula are 6999's job; CSI publishes no lead times, so ask on WhatsApp.

What to buy, and what to skip

Four items, chosen on page statements, price and stock on 7 October 2026. CSI publishes no flame, soot or wick data for any oil or wick, so nothing is ranked on performance.

Skip for now: test materials for the seven unchanged formulas; a production size of the new oil before the retest passes; a second wax bag "to be safe" (it would be a second change); and any 100-plus wick pack for a spec that hasn't been approved.

Frequently asked questions