Choose a formula route around your brief.
A formula route should follow the difference your product needs to make. Begin with the intended experience and requirements, then compare whether an existing starting point, an adaptation or new development addresses them.
1. Define the product difference.
List the intended format, application experience, fragrance direction, packaging and market. Then mark the requirements that are essential. A brand seeking a different finish may need a different discussion from a brand seeking only a new outer carton.
Use observable language. “Spreads easily, feels light after application and dispenses through a pump” provides a starting direction. Ingredient preferences should be reviewed in the context of the whole formula, the proposed claims and the intended use; a fashionable ingredient name is not a complete formulation brief.
2. Compare three starting routes.
| Route | Starting question | Review to discuss |
|---|---|---|
| Existing starting formula | Does the current sample address the brief? | Availability, specification, packaging and applicable evidence. |
| Adaptation | Which features should change and which should remain? | The effect of changes on the formula, sample review and further checks. |
| New development | What experience or specification needs to be created? | Development deliverables, review stages, responsibilities and acceptance criteria. |
This comparison does not establish which formulas Yuanze currently offers as stock. Ask the team to confirm the actual options for the product. A route can only be evaluated properly once its sample, requirements and proposed work are clear.
3. Treat changes as technical decisions.
A fragrance adjustment, colour change, different ingredient or new dispensing component may look small in a commercial brief. Ask the development team what further work that change requires. Keep the change connected to the accepted formula reference so the project does not accumulate unrecorded versions.
The stability guidance from Cosmetics Europe / CTFA describes a product-specific approach rather than one universal test programme. The practical lesson for a brand is to ask which existing information remains relevant after a modification and which checks need to be repeated or added.
4. Evaluate the sample and proposal together.
Compare samples using the same sensory criteria and packaging assumptions. Compare proposals using the same deliverables, quantity and review scope. A familiar starting formula may still need significant packaging work; a custom formula may still use an existing component.
- The actual formula and sample reference.
- Changes included in the proposal.
- Testing and documentation to be confirmed.
- Rights to use the formula and any exclusivity terms.
- The approval owner and next decision.
Choose the route that answers your brief with a clear review path. Avoid using “custom” as a substitute for a specific product difference or “stock” as a promise of immediate production.
Sources & further reading
Practical examples and checklists are editorial guidance. The references below support the technical background and company information.
- Cosmetics Europe / CTFA — Guidelines on Stability Testing of Cosmetics (2004)
Background on stability studies and the formula–container combination.
- Yuanze — Product Development
Yuanze’s published cross-functional development workflow.
