How Do I Document an Approved Wax × Fragrance × Load × Wick × Process Combination so Future Production Does Not Recreate a Sweating Failure?

Why sweating comes back

You found a combination that stays dry. The load was lowered, the wax was chosen, the wick was re-tested and the heat cycles passed. Six months later, a batch sweats again. Investigations into these repeats usually find something small and undocumented: the wax was reordered in a different form, a staff member used the old wick stock, the oil was weighed as a percentage of wax instead of total, or a larger batch was poured without anyone checking that it cooled the same way.

Each of those changes looked harmless to the person making it, because nothing told them the variable mattered. An approved formula sheet is how you tell them. It records not only the recipe but the evidence and the boundaries, so the next person who wants to change something knows that it was tested, how, and what happens if they change it.

The worked example

This page uses one example formula: CSI 464 with Woody Oud at 7% of total weight, in the 300 g Green Iridescent Jar with Bamboo Lid (diameter 7 cm per the page), with a single Eco C2 wick. A 300 g candle at 7% is 300 × 0.07 = 21 g of oil and 279 g of wax. On a wax basis that is 21 ÷ 279 = 7.53%, comfortably inside CSI 464's stated 'up to 10%' of wax weight.

Materials per candle: wax 279 × ₹0.5074 = ₹141.56; oil 21 × ₹4.5312 = ₹95.16; jar ₹150.00; wick ₹9.44. Total ₹141.56 + ₹95.16 + ₹150.00 + ₹9.44 = ₹396.16, excluding packaging, labels, labour, shipping and GST. For a 10 kg batch: oil 10,000 × 0.07 = 700 g, wax 9,300 g, making 10,000 ÷ 300 = 33 candles with 100 g left over.

The specification sheet

Notice what the process row does not say. CSI 464's page does not publish a fragrance-addition or pour temperature, so the sheet records the values you validated, measured with a thermometer rather than read from a melter display. If you use the Electric Wax Melter, its page states a ±10°C display deviation, which is exactly why the sheet should name the measuring tool as well as the number.

Two fields deserve extra care. The per-batch row should list every batch size you have actually validated, not a formula for scaling. If you have only ever poured 5 kg and 10 kg batches of this candle, those are the two rows; a 20 kg batch is a process change until a pilot has passed. The cooling row should be specific enough that a new staff member could set it up: which rack, how far from the air-conditioner vent, whether trays are covered. Cooling conditions are one of the variables that bring sweating back when a production room is rearranged.

Attach the evidence, not a summary of it

An approval that says 'tested, stable' tells the next person nothing. Attach the actual logs: the observation record at each check day with photographs, the warm-room cycle record with your chosen conditions and results, and the burn log for each wick tested, including the burn to the end. Note candle counts. Three candles that passed is different evidence from twelve. Keep one unburned reference candle from the approval batch, labelled with the formula code and pour date, for comparison with future production.

Your heat-cycle conditions are your own; CSI publishes no heat-resistance or survival temperature for CSI 464 or any other wax. Writing the conditions on the sheet matters for that reason. If you later sell into a hotter market, the sheet tells you whether the formula was ever tested for it.

Link the sheet to your batch records. Each production batch sheet should name the formula code and version, the wax and oil delivery dates, the actual oil weight added and the measured temperatures. When a batch is questioned, you can trace it to the exact materials and compare its actual values with the approved ones.

The change rule: what triggers re-testing

Each trigger creates a new version, not an edit. The old version stays on file, marked superseded, with the reason. Production uses only the current approved version, and the sheet at the melter shows which one that is. If an old printed copy is found anywhere near production, remove it; superseded sheets belong in the file, not on the wall.

Making the sheet actually used

A specification sheet only prevents repeat failures if it is the document people work from. Print the per-batch section and keep it at the melter. Pre-weigh oil to the sheet's gram figure for the batch size being made. Have the person who signs the batch sheet check the actual values against the approved ones before pouring, and hold any batch that falls outside them.

Review the sheet when anything in your supply changes, and at least before each summer if you sell into hot regions. A formula that has passed every check and is followed exactly is the most reliable protection you have against a sweating candle reaching a customer, and it costs nothing but the discipline to write it down.

When a new scent is approved, copy the structure, not the values. Start a fresh sheet, run the same tests, and fill in the evidence for that combination. Copying the oud sheet and changing only the oil name is how an untested load reaches production under an approved-looking code.

Where this page fits

CSI already has guides that cover parts of this question. This page answers one sweating decision; these cover the neighbouring questions:

Three things to buy for this fix

Frequently asked questions