THE QUICK ANSWER
Two different claims hide inside one phrase. A stated load rating is a specification item for this product; a restraint-performance claim is not, and our own published limit says restraint performance claims require third-party testing named in the quotation. So do not ask an article what this tether is rated at. Ask which claim the quotation supports, what evidence stands behind it, which build it applies to, and where the answer is recorded.
Which claim are you actually asking for?
Put it in the RFQ in these words: is the wording we are asking about a stated load rating, or a restraint-performance claim? Four answers are possible and they are not interchangeable. It is a stated load rating, which our development sheet treats as a specification item for this product. It is a restraint-performance claim — crash tested, crash test certified, tested to a named standard — which our own published limit says requires third-party testing named in the quotation. It is a component supplier's rating for one part rather than for the finished tether. Or nothing has been agreed yet. The difference decides what evidence has to exist before any artwork is drawn. A good written answer names one of the four and says what stands behind it. A deflection returns an adjective: heavy duty, safety tested, built for safety. Get the named claim into the quotation first, and only then into the specification and the artwork file.
The figure, and the method behind the figure
Ask: state the load figure, state the test method the figure is agreed against, and state the construction the figure applies to. The answers you may get are a named published standard, a written in-house procedure, a component supplier's document covering one part, or no method agreed yet — and no method yet is a legitimate answer at quotation stage, provided it is written down rather than implied. The difference shows up at sample review. Our published review for this product is a load test to the stated figure, fitting retention and webbing abrasion. A figure with no method behind it gives that load test nothing to check against, so the review can neither pass it nor fail it. A good answer returns all three items together. A weak one returns the number alone. Keep the three on one specification line, and keep the same line in the quotation, because printed webbing carrying the stated rating is one of the branding options our sheet lists for this product.
Which build does the claim belong to?
Ask: which construction revision does this claim apply to, and which changes require it to be re-confirmed? The answers divide sharply. A claim tied to a named revision. A claim tied only to a product name. Or a claim that says nothing about the build at all. This product's own variable fields give the question its teeth: length range, webbing width, stated load rating, fitting type, finished weight and packed carton volume, plus the webbing and hardware behind them. One failure mode is a substitution. A later production run takes different hardware, nobody reopens the artwork, and printed wording now sits on a build the evidence may not describe. Whether it still describes it is a question for whoever holds the evidence, not something to assume either way. A good answer names a revision and a re-confirmation trigger list. A deflection names the product. This belongs in the specification under change control, and in the order record for the run it was approved against.
Is testing in scope, and who books it?
Ask: is third-party testing in scope for this order, who books it, and what configuration will the report name? Possible answers: in scope and booked by the factory; in scope and booked by you with a laboratory you nominate; out of scope, with no restraint-performance wording printed; or undecided. Our published limit for this product is the reason to ask at all — restraint performance claims require third-party testing named in the quotation, so wording with no testing named in that document has nothing standing behind it. We publish no test cost, no test lead time and no list of laboratories, and no article can supply them for you; the quotation is where that question is answered. Ask as well what the report states as its own scope, and read that scope off the report rather than inferring it. A good answer names who books, what is tested and what the report will identify. A deflection says testing can be arranged.
What the sample review covers, and what it does not evidence
Ask: what does the sample review cover for this build, and what does passing it not evidence? Our published review is a load test to the stated figure, fitting retention and webbing abrasion. The next question is which additional checks, if any, go on that sheet for your build — the bar tack where the webbing is folded, the webbing where it wraps a hardware bar, the adjuster, and the fitting at the vehicle end. Name the ones you want and ask for them in writing rather than assuming the standard sheet reaches them. One r/dogs thread describes a leash clip that opened during a walk. That is one person's experience and not a failure rate, and it is a fair reason to ask whether fitting retention, as reviewed, includes gate action. A good answer lists the checks and the revision reviewed. Record it against the approved sample, in the specification.
What can go on the pack instead, and where each line is checked
Ask: which of these lines can you confirm for the pack, and where is each one checked? The candidates are webbing width as a measured number, the material, the fitting type — our sheet names a seat-belt tongue or an ISOFIX-style fitting — the length range, hardware type and finish, and the care line this product already carries: wipe clean, replace after any load event. For any hardware rating, ask the component supplier for a dated document stating the rating and the part it applies to, and treat it as unavailable until it is in your hands. Separate the answers three ways: what is checkable on an incoming sample, what is checkable only against a document, and what is a performance claim and therefore back in the testing question above. Whether a given wording is permitted in a destination market is a separate question, for whoever reviews claims for that market. These lines belong in the specification and the artwork file.
Where each answer is recorded once you have it
Ask for a claim register, and ask who keeps it: the claim, the evidence document and its date, the construction revision it applies to, and the approver. A claim missing any of the four does not print. Ask one commercial question in the same document: if a claim has to change after artwork approval, what written approval is required and what does that affect? We publish no answer to that here, so it is a quotation question, and putting it in writing before artwork is easier than raising it afterwards. What we do publish is a starting point: typical MOQ 100–500 units, confirmed by product, color, size and customization; a stock-item custom sample within 7 days and a fully custom sample within 15 days, after the required details are confirmed; and sea, air or express shipping matched to order size and deadline. Everything else, including every answer above, is confirmed in the written quotation.
A useful comparison
| Question to ask | Answers you may get | What it changes | Where it belongs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which claim is this — a stated load rating or a restraint-performance claim? | A specification item; a performance claim; a component rating; nothing agreed yet | Whether third-party evidence has to exist before artwork | The quotation, then the specification |
| What test method is the load figure agreed against? | A named published standard; a written in-house procedure; a supplier document; none yet | Whether the load test at sample review has anything to check against | The specification, on one line with the figure |
| Which construction revision does the claim apply to? | A named revision; the product name only; silent on the build | Whether a webbing or hardware substitution reopens the claim | The specification, under change control |
| Is third-party testing in scope, and who books it? | Factory books it; you book it; out of scope; undecided | Whether restraint-performance wording can be printed at all | The quotation |
| What does the report state as its own scope? | A configuration read off the report; nothing stated yet | Which build the claim is allowed to travel with | The order record, beside the report |
| What does the sample review cover for this build? | Load test to the stated figure, fitting retention, webbing abrasion, plus any checks you ask for | What a passed review does and does not evidence | The specification, against the approved sample |
| Does the hardware rating come with a dated supplier document? | Yes, naming the part; yes, but unnamed; not available | Whether a component figure may appear on the pack at all | The order record |
| If a claim changes after artwork approval, what written approval is required? | A named approval route; nothing stated yet | Who signs, and when the artwork can move | The quotation |
| Which surfaces carry the claim? | Printed webbing; woven label; polybag; hang tag; carton; listing copy | How many places a retraction has to reach | The artwork file and the specification |
Explore private-label product options.
Soft-sided pet carrier — materials, customization and sample checks Pet backpack carrier — materials, customization and sample checks Car seat hammock — materials, customization and sample checksSources and research context
Sources reviewed 2026-09-14. Community excerpts are anecdotes. Manufacturer guidance applies to that manufacturer’s products. Shortlists are editorial comparisons without hands-on comparative testing or verified sales rankings.
How we research and writeTURN THE ANSWER INTO AN OEM BRIEF
