Your wardrobe, measured. Circulation on the Web of Trust.
Everything you see is example data. The people are invented, the vouches are invented, and the garments are chosen to show what measured, declared and unmeasured look like side by side.
Two routes to an ideal garment
Ideal clothes means either second hand, or produced to the best production standards. Recorded 4 September 2026. Both routes are first class here, and how the route is known is shown the same way as any other attribute.
Second hand
Already made, already paid for by the planet. The open question is whether it fits and suits, which is what measuring is for.
Best production standards
Made by people who could take pride in it. A logo declares that; a person on your vouch path who has been to the workshop observes it. The app shows which of the two you have.
Measured or declared
Every attribute says how it is known. Measured means the garment device or another instrument produced the number. Declared means a label, a size chart or a person said so. Not measured means exactly that, and the app will not fill it in for you.
measured an instrument produced it
declared a label or a person said so
inferred derived from something else
not measured nobody has established it
Your measurements
Say how each number is known. A tape measure counts as measured. From memory counts as declared, and a declared body measurement caps the confidence of every verdict it takes part in.
Colour type:Soft Autumncoin flip with winter, confidence 0.38
Heuristic, not science. Set on the Clothes page; the same stored answers are read here.
Your wardrobe
Your body against the garment, and your colour type against its colour. A verdict is shown as a conclusion only when the garment side was measured. A garment nobody has measured gets no verdict at all.
Wool overcoat, charcoal
Outerwearexample
2 measured0 declared0 not measured
Bought second hand, measured by the device on arrival.
Second handdeclared, purchase record, vintage store
Reference: this one worksWorn, still goodThree winters. Warm, right length, the one I reach for.
All dimensions used were measured by an instrument.
Chestfits, +12 cm
Sleevefits, +2 cm
ColourNear your palettenot confident
Your colour typing is a coin flip between autumn and winter, so this reads as a comparison, not a verdict.
Nearest in Soft Autumn: #6B5F4E, distance 28
Nearest in Deep Winter: #15161A, distance 12
Heuristic, not science
Linen shirt, undyed
Topexample
0 measured2 declared0 not measured
From a maker somebody on your path has visited. Nothing on it has been measured yet.
Best production standardsdeclared, maker's own statement and a GOTS logo
Maker: Leinenweberei Muster (example maker). Reached through your vouches: you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Leinenweberei Muster (example maker) (visited the workshop, the people there take pride in the work).
Your colour typing is a coin flip between autumn and winter, so this reads as a comparison, not a verdict.
Nearest in Soft Autumn: #6B5F4E, distance 36
Nearest in Deep Winter: #1F2A44, distance 8
Heuristic, not science
Merino crew neck, rust
Knitexample
0 measured0 declared2 not measured
Arrived yesterday. Not yet through the device.
Route not establishednobody has said which route this took
Brand
not measurednot measured
Style code
not measurednot measured
Size on label
not measurednot measured
Chest
not measurednot measured
Sleeve
not measurednot measured
Fibre
not measurednot measured
Condition
not measurednot measured
Age
not measurednot measured
Washes
not measurednot measured
Colour
not measurednot measured
FitNo verdictunmeasured
No verdict: the garment's chest has not been measured.
Chestnot measured
Sleevenot measured
ColourNo verdictuncaptured
No verdict: the garment colour has not been captured.
Heuristic, not science
The same garment again
A garment that works is a decision you do not have to make again. Mark it as a reference and the app looks for the exact same model in the same size among what people on your vouch paths are offering, then checks whether the one it found is still the size yours is.
What identifies a garment
A new garment carries a barcode on its swing tag. A second-hand garment usually does not: what remains is the brand label, sometimes a style code printed on the care label, a size letter, the fibre composition, and the garment itself. Identity is reconstructed from those parts, and every part says how it was established. The size on the label and the size the device measured are two different facts and are never merged.
A match shows its reasons
"Same brand and style code, measurements within a centimetre" is a different claim from "same brand and size label, nothing measured". The match names which parts agreed, caps its confidence by which parts were established at all, and lowers it to the weakest part it used. A percentage on its own would hide exactly that.
Is it still the size yours is
The reference stores the dimensions the device measured when the garment worked. A candidate that matches on identity is compared to that standard and the difference is reported in words. Where every compared dimension is smaller and the fibre is one that shrinks, the app says the pattern is consistent with shrinkage, as an inference that never reaches the confidence floor: the wash history is not observed, only its plausible result.
A candidate nobody measured gets no condition verdict. This is the argument for the device: the identity can be read off a label by anyone, the condition cannot.
A difference can also come from age, and age is not washing: felting and relaxation need water, a wardrobe gives none. Elastane loses its recovery as it hydrolyses in storage, and a garment that no longer pulls back measures larger, which is growth, not shrinkage. The report attributes a difference to wash, to age, or leaves it undetermined, always as an inference below the confidence floor. Where the candidate's age is not stated the attribution stays undetermined rather than defaulting to either cause.
What was checked
Checked on 6 September 2026 by fetching the sources named, without a search engine sweep, and with several sites behind bot walls. "No registry found" means none was found in this pass; it is not an exhaustive negative, and it is dated so it can be re-checked.
noAn open registry of garment identifiersconfidence 0.75
No open registry maps a style code or a barcode to a specific garment model. Verified by GS1 answers whether a number is a licensed GS1 number and returns whatever the brand chose to publish against it; batch access goes through a GS1 office. Open Products Facts, the sibling of Open Food Facts, is genuinely open and held about 45,000 products in total across every category when checked. opengtindb.org is a free wiki-style barcode database with no garment-level fields visible; EAN-Search is a rate-limited commercial aggregator. Wikidata has a GTIN property but no systematic apparel coverage. circularity.ID publishes an open data standard for what a garment record should contain; the identifiers and the lookup are a service sold to brands. So the identifier here is reconstructed from the garment, and the app says so.
existsA brand style code on the garment itselfconfidence 0.40, below 0.7
Many brands print a style or article number on the sewn-in care label rather than only on the paper swing tag, so it survives second hand; some denim brands also print a lot number on the back patch. The format is the brand's own, it is often abbreviated on the label, and it fades. Where it is present it names the model, which is the one thing the brand name and size letter cannot.
Background knowledge, not a sourced finding. On 6 September 2026 every brand support page tried (Patagonia, Levi's, Nike, Uniqlo, H&M, Fjällräven, Arc'teryx) returned an error or an empty shell, and web search was unavailable, so no brand's format or label placement was confirmed. The example codes in this app are invented and say so.
noResale platforms exposing an identifierconfidence 0.55, below 0.7
None of ThredUp, Vinted, Depop, Vestiaire Collective or eBay could be confirmed to let a buyer search by a garment's style code as an identity. Where a smart feature exists at all, Vestiaire Collective's photo-based Smart Listing, it auto-fills a description from images rather than matching an identifier. A listing is a description, not an identifier. The earlier prior-art pass on this site established separately that none of the five captures measurements or fibre beyond what the seller types.
Vinted and eBay help pages could not be loaded on 6 September 2026, so their absence of an identifier lookup is not confirmed, only not found.
The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, (EU) 2024/1781, has been in force since 18 July 2024 and names textiles as a priority group, with a Digital Product Passport as the intended carrier of exactly the identity this app has to reconstruct. The Commission's own implementation page says the first working plan was adopted in April 2025 and that preparatory work on textiles has begun; it names no textiles act as adopted. So the delegated act that would define the passport for textiles had not been adopted as of September 2026. The 2027 date commonly cited for it was not found in Commission primary text and is treated here as unverified; the one vendor page that gave a range said 2025 to 2030. The act adopted in February 2026 bans the destruction of unsold textiles and is a different measure. When the passport lands, the fingerprint gains a part with basis "declared by the passport"; nothing else in this app changes.
Care labels and the wrong temperature
The number in the wash-tub symbol on a care label is the maximum wash temperature in degrees Celsius under ISO 3758, the care labelling code GINETEX and ISO developed together. A garment washed above its symbol is outside what the maker tested it for. That is the wrong temperature Jakob named, and it is a claim about treatment that the device cannot see, only infer from the result.
"You'll see I wear only gray or blue suits," he said. "I'm trying to pare down decisions. I don't want to make decisions about what I'm eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make."
The purpose is fewer decisions in a week, not more clothes. A small set of references that together cover the week is a uniform. The slots and their counts are defaults for one wash a week and are yours to change.
1 of 4 slots covered by a garment you have already tested. That is 1 decision a week already made.
Tops
not covered
0 of wanted, one a day between washes
Trousers
partly covered
1 of wanted, one on, one drying
Straight jeans, indigo
Knits
not covered
0 of wanted, the cold-weather layer, worn several days each
Outerwear
covered
1 of wanted, one coat that works is the whole point
Wool overcoat, charcoal
Dresses
not part of the uniform
0 of wanted, not part of this uniform unless you say so
What to find a replacement for first
Wool overcoat, charcoalYou marked it as worn. It is the only one in its slot, so nothing covers the gap while a replacement is found.
Straight jeans, indigoMarked fresh; nothing to do yet. It is the only one in its slot, so nothing covers the gap while a replacement is found.
Find it again
Each reference is a standing question through the shared query port: the same model, the same size, offered for reuse by someone on your vouch paths. What comes back is the identity match with its reasons, the condition against your standard, and the path to the holder. No score on anyone.
Find again: Wool overcoat, charcoal
Looking for: Mantelwerk Muster, MW-4471, size L on the label, 2 dimensions measured.
The buy again and buy multiple actions appear only where identity is beyond doubt, at or above a confidence of 0.80; below that there is no button, not a greyed one, and the space says which part of the fingerprint is unestablished and what would settle it.
Asked every clothing provider for garments matching "Mantelwerk Muster", offered for reuse, for the purpose: finding a garment you already own again, in the same size.
ideal-clothing: 4 garments returned.
Offered by someone Anna (example) vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Lena (example) (her device reads what mine reads, we checked them against each other)
Wool overcoat, charcoal
Bought new two winters ago, worn little, never washed. Through my device this week.
IdentitySame model, same sizeconfident
Confidence 0.85, capped at 0.90 because brand and style code agree and the measurements are within a centimetre.
=CategoryBoth are outerwear.
=BrandSame brand, Mantelwerk Muster, on both.
=Style codeSame style code, MW-4471, on both.
=Size on labelSame size on label, L, on both.
=Measurements2 measured dimensions within 1 cm of yours.
=FibreSame composition, 82% wool, 18% polyamide.
=ColourwayColour within 0 delta E of yours.
A label read by the device is an observation of what the label says, not proof of what the garment is. The match rests on the weakest of the parts it used, and it is capped by which parts were established at all.
ConditionAs yoursmeasured
Within 1 cm of your standard on every compared dimension.
Chest as yours (+0.5 cm).
Sleeve as yours.
A difference is a fact about two measurements. Why they differ is an inference: another production run, a different cut for the same size, or a hot wash all leave the same number. The check reports the difference and keeps the why below the confidence floor.
Identity beyond doubt: confidence 0.85, at or above the threshold of 0.80, with the measurements agreeing.
Offered by Anna (example), whom you vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition)
Wool overcoat, charcoal
Same coat as yours from the same maker, one owner before me. Went through my device last week. Four winters old, washed maybe ten times.
IdentitySame model, same sizebelow the floor
Confidence 0.60, capped at 0.60 because brand, style code, size on label agree, but the measurements differ; see the condition check.
=CategoryBoth are outerwear.
=BrandSame brand, Mantelwerk Muster, on both.
=Style codeSame style code, MW-4471, on both.
=Size on labelSame size on label, L, on both.
≠Measurements2 measured dimensions differ by up to 3 cm. That is a condition question, not an identity one; see the condition check.
=FibreSame composition, 82% wool, 18% polyamide.
=ColourwayColour within 0 delta E of yours.
A label read by the device is an observation of what the label says, not proof of what the garment is. The match rests on the weakest of the parts it used, and it is capped by which parts were established at all.
ConditionDiffers from yoursmeasured
Sleeve 3 cm shorter than yours.
Chest as yours (-1 cm).
Sleeve 3 cm shorter than yours.
inferencePattern consistent with shrinkage.confidence 0.60, below the floor by design
1 of 2 compared dimensions smaller than yours, none larger.
Wool is prone to it: felting.
Wash history is not observed. This stays an inference.
What is known about wool and shrinkage
Felting. A wool fibre is covered in tiny overlapping scales, like the scales on a human hair. Heat, motion and moisture open the scales, and agitation makes them latch onto one another, so fibres lock together and the fabric becomes denser and smaller. It does not recover.
Mechanical action in water is the driver; heat and long cycles make it worse, and tumble drying adds both. Machine-washable wool has had the scales masked or smoothed so they cannot interlock, which is why it resists felting.
How much: not sourced as a household figure; felting is progressive with each wash rather than a one-time settling.
Confidence 0.60. The scale-and-agitation mechanism was confirmed from a community-edited source only. The directional friction effect (fibres ratcheting root-first) and the role of alkaline detergent are textbook textile science that no fetched page confirmed this pass, and the Woolmark care pages were behind a bot wall on every attempt.
inferenceCause:Washingconfidence 0.50, below the floor by design
Pattern consistent with shrinkage from washing over its years, not from time itself.
Age 4 years, declared by Anna, from the purchase date.
10 washes, declared by Anna, from memory.
Smaller than yours on every compared dimension.
Wool shrinks in the wash: felting. Nothing sourced this pass shrinks it with time in storage, so washing over its years is the reading that fits. Repeated washing over years is the wash mechanism again, not time.
Washed 10 times by the holder's count.
Neither the years nor the washes are observed by the device. This stays an inference.
What is known about age and this composition
Humidity swells and shrinks fibres, reversiblydimensions: reversible
At high relative humidity fibres swell as they take up water vapour and the textile shrinks, especially along the warp; at low humidity they release it and the fibres shrink again. This is a response to the air on the day, not an ageing effect: it reverses when the humidity does.
How much: not sourced as a figure. Named as a mechanism by a conservation institute; a nylon page states the dimensions change with moisture content without a number..
Confidence 0.70. Two measurements taken in very different humidity could differ for this reason alone. The device does not record humidity, so this cannot be ruled in or out.
Light, heat and pollutants weaken fibresdimensions: stable
Ultraviolet light damages fibres by photo-oxidation, which weakens and embrittles them and yellows them; heat speeds every deterioration; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and ozone cause degradative reactions that affect fibre properties. Nylon can hydrolyse in polluted air. All of this is strength and colour. No page reached says any of it changes a garment's dimensions.
How much: not sourced as a dimension; the sourced effects are on strength and colour.
Confidence 0.70. Absence of a dimensional claim on the pages reached is not proof that none exists. A garment weakened this way may stretch in wear more readily, which is not sourced.
Repeated washing over years is the wash mechanism, not timedimensions: shrinks
An old garment has usually been washed many times, so age and wash count travel together. They are different facts: felting needs agitation in water and relaxation needs water, and a garment in a wardrobe gets neither. This app records the wash count and the age as separate declared values, and reads a smaller old wool garment as washing over its years, not as time.
How much: not sourced. Both ISO pages that define dimensional change after N wash cycles (ISO 6330, ISO 5077) returned 403; Woolmark's wash page says only that treated wool can be machine washed multiple times without shrinkage and does not describe untreated wool per wash..
Confidence 0.40. That felting is progressive with each wash is textbook textile science the wash table already carries with the same caveat; no page reached this pass stated it in those words.
Whether a wool garment changes dimension from years in a wardrobe, with no washing, is not sourced in either direction. The one storage page reached covers moths, mould and dust and says nothing about size.
How much: not sourced.
Confidence 0.10. No positive or negative statement was found. The attribution treats a smaller wool garment that was never washed as undetermined for this reason.
A difference is a fact about two measurements. Why they differ is an inference: another production run, a different cut for the same size, or a hot wash all leave the same number. The check reports the difference and keeps the why below the confidence floor.
No buy action: identity is not beyond doubt (confidence 0.60, threshold 0.80).
Measurements2 measured dimensions differ by up to 3 cm. That is a condition question, not an identity one; see the condition check.Nothing on the label settles this. Read the condition check: where the pattern reads as shrinkage or growth, this is not the garment you are looking for, whatever the label says.
Offered by someone Anna (example) vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Mira (example) (measures what she lists)
Wool overcoat, dark grey
Same maker, size L on the label. The style code on the care label has faded. I have no device, so nothing is measured.
IdentitySame brand and size, model not establishedbelow the floor
Confidence 0.45, capped at 0.45 because brand and size label agree; nothing measured, no style code.
=CategoryBoth are outerwear.
=BrandSame brand, Mantelwerk Muster, on both.via declared value
?Style codeThe candidate has no style code on record.
=Size on labelSame size on label, L, on both.via declared value
?MeasurementsThe candidate has not been measured.
?FibreComposition on the candidate is not given as shares ("wool blend"), so it cannot be compared.
=ColourwayColour within 4 delta E of yours.via declared value
A label read by the device is an observation of what the label says, not proof of what the garment is. The match rests on the weakest of the parts it used, and it is capped by which parts were established at all.
ConditionNo verdictunmeasured
No verdict: the candidate has not been measured. Only a measured candidate can be checked against your standard, which is what the device is for.
A candidate nobody measured gets no condition verdict. This is the argument for the device: the identity can be read off a label by anyone, the condition cannot.
A difference is a fact about two measurements. Why they differ is an inference: another production run, a different cut for the same size, or a hot wash all leave the same number. The check reports the difference and keeps the why below the confidence floor.
No buy action: identity is not beyond doubt (confidence 0.45, threshold 0.80).
BrandThe brand agrees, but on at least one side it was declared, not read by the device (confidence 0.50, threshold 0.80).Ask for a photo of the label so the device can read it, rather than taking the value as typed.
Style codeThe candidate has no style code on record.Ask the holder for a photo of the care label, where the style code is printed, or to read it with a device.
MeasurementsThe candidate has not been measured.Ask the holder to put it through a device, or a neighbourhood measuring station.
Ruled out: Wool overcoat, charcoal, longer cut (Style code differs: MW-4471 on yours, MW-4480 on the candidate.).
Find again: Straight jeans, indigo
Looking for: 2 dimensions measured.
The buy again and buy multiple actions appear only where identity is beyond doubt, at or above a confidence of 0.80; below that there is no button, not a greyed one, and the space says which part of the fingerprint is unestablished and what would settle it.
Asked every clothing provider for every garment offered, offered for reuse, for the purpose: finding a garment you already own again, in the same size.
ideal-clothing: 8 garments returned.
Offered by someone Anna (example) vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Lena (example) (her device reads what mine reads, we checked them against each other)
Straight jeans, indigo, stretch
Six years old. The waistband does not pull back the way it did. Measured on my device.
IdentityNothing to identify it byunestablished
No confidence figure: no identifying part was established on both garments.
=CategoryBoth are trousers.
?BrandYour reference has no brand on record.
?Style codeNo style code on either garment.
?Size on labelYour reference has no size on label on record.
≠Measurements2 measured dimensions differ by up to 3 cm. That is a condition question, not an identity one; see the condition check.
?FibreFibre not established on your reference.
=ColourwayColour within 2 delta E of yours.
A label read by the device is an observation of what the label says, not proof of what the garment is. The match rests on the weakest of the parts it used, and it is capped by which parts were established at all.
ConditionDiffers from yourspartly measured
Waist 3 cm wider than yours.
Waist 3 cm wider than yours.
Hips: your reference was not measured here.
Inseam as yours.
inferenceNot consistent with shrinkage.
At least one dimension is larger than yours, which shrinkage does not produce.
inferenceCause:Ageconfidence 0.40, below the floor by design
Pattern consistent with loss of recovery from age.
Age 6 years, declared by Lena, from the purchase date.
Larger than yours, which shrinkage does not produce.
Elastane is in the composition. Elastane loses recovery as its polyurethane hydrolyses in storage, and a garment that no longer pulls back measures larger: growth, not shrinkage. The direction is reasoning from the mechanism, not a sourced finding.
Hot washes and chlorine degrade elastane too, so washing is not excluded; with the age stated, time is the reading that fits.
Neither the years nor the washes are observed by the device. This stays an inference.
What is known about age and this composition
Elastane loses recoverydimensions: grows
Elastane is a segmented polyurethane, and polyurethanes hydrolyse in storage from the moisture in the air, without any washing. A fibre that has hydrolysed no longer pulls the fabric back after it is stretched, so a waistband or a cuff that once returned stays at the stretched length. Dimensionally that reads as growth, not shrinkage.
How much: not sourced. No page reached gave a percentage of recovery lost or a number of years to failure for elastane; the one measured ageing study reached mixed sun, sweat and 30 degree washes and reported lower elongation at break in the elastane blends, not a dimension..
Confidence 0.35. Only the generic polyurethane hydrolysis is sourced, and from a community-edited page. That elastane specifically loses recovery this way, and that the loss shows as the garment measuring larger, is reasoning from the mechanism that no fetched page confirmed. Hot washes and chlorine degrade elastane too (see the wash table), so age is never the only candidate cause.
Humidity swells and shrinks fibres, reversiblydimensions: reversible
At high relative humidity fibres swell as they take up water vapour and the textile shrinks, especially along the warp; at low humidity they release it and the fibres shrink again. This is a response to the air on the day, not an ageing effect: it reverses when the humidity does.
How much: not sourced as a figure. Named as a mechanism by a conservation institute; a nylon page states the dimensions change with moisture content without a number..
Confidence 0.70. Two measurements taken in very different humidity could differ for this reason alone. The device does not record humidity, so this cannot be ruled in or out.
Light, heat and pollutants weaken fibresdimensions: stable
Ultraviolet light damages fibres by photo-oxidation, which weakens and embrittles them and yellows them; heat speeds every deterioration; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and ozone cause degradative reactions that affect fibre properties. Nylon can hydrolyse in polluted air. All of this is strength and colour. No page reached says any of it changes a garment's dimensions.
How much: not sourced as a dimension; the sourced effects are on strength and colour.
Confidence 0.70. Absence of a dimensional claim on the pages reached is not proof that none exists. A garment weakened this way may stretch in wear more readily, which is not sourced.
Whether cotton keeps settling over its lifedimensions: unknown
Relaxation shrinkage releases the strains left by manufacturing when water lets the fabric relax. Whether that is a one-time settling in the first washes or continues over years of wear is the open question. The one page reached names the release of manufacturing stresses as the major cause of shrinkage and does not separate a first-wash settling from shrinkage that continues.
How much: not sourced. Cotton Incorporated, which publishes the industry figures, returned 403 on every URL tried..
Confidence 0.20. Not settled either way this pass. The attribution therefore treats a smaller cotton garment as a wash question, because water is the only sourced trigger, and says that time alone is not sourced to shrink it.
Repeated washing over years is the wash mechanism, not timedimensions: shrinks
An old garment has usually been washed many times, so age and wash count travel together. They are different facts: felting needs agitation in water and relaxation needs water, and a garment in a wardrobe gets neither. This app records the wash count and the age as separate declared values, and reads a smaller old wool garment as washing over its years, not as time.
How much: not sourced. Both ISO pages that define dimensional change after N wash cycles (ISO 6330, ISO 5077) returned 403; Woolmark's wash page says only that treated wool can be machine washed multiple times without shrinkage and does not describe untreated wool per wash..
Confidence 0.40. That felting is progressive with each wash is textbook textile science the wash table already carries with the same caveat; no page reached this pass stated it in those words.
A difference is a fact about two measurements. Why they differ is an inference: another production run, a different cut for the same size, or a hot wash all leave the same number. The check reports the difference and keeps the why below the confidence floor.
No buy action: identity is not beyond doubt (no confidence figure, threshold 0.80).
BrandYour reference has no brand on record.Read the brand label on your own garment with the device. Where the label is gone, the measurements alone name a size, not a model, and no candidate can match beyond doubt.
Style codeNo style code on either garment.Read the care label on your own garment with the device. If the code has faded off it, no candidate can ever match this garment beyond doubt. Ask the holder for a photo of the care label, where the style code is printed, or to read it with a device.
Measurements2 measured dimensions differ by up to 3 cm. That is a condition question, not an identity one; see the condition check.Nothing on the label settles this. Read the condition check: where the pattern reads as shrinkage or growth, this is not the garment you are looking for, whatever the label says.
Ruled out: Wool blazer, moss (Yours is trousers, the candidate is top.); Wool overcoat, charcoal (Yours is trousers, the candidate is outerwear.); Cotton shirt dress, navy (Yours is trousers, the candidate is dress.); Wool overcoat, dark grey (Yours is trousers, the candidate is outerwear.); Rain jacket, olive (Yours is trousers, the candidate is outerwear.); Wool overcoat, charcoal, longer cut (Yours is trousers, the candidate is outerwear.); Wool overcoat, charcoal (Yours is trousers, the candidate is outerwear.).
Circulation
Offer a garment to the people you have a vouch path to, and see what they are offering you. What is shown is the path. There is no score, no percentage and no ranking, because a list that ranks people grows a leaderboard on its own.
Who can see what you offer
Your gate. It runs from you outward: a person sees your offers when you have vouched for them, directly or through someone you vouched for. A rule for a named person overrides the preset.
Ben (example)neverinventoryuntil the coat comes back
Who sees your offers right now
Person
Sees them
Because
Anna (example)
yes
you vouched for Anna (example)
Mira (example)
yes
you vouched for Anna (example) vouched for Mira (example)
Ben (example)
no
rule for Ben (example): until the coat comes back
Lena (example)
yes
you vouched for Anna (example) vouched for Lena (example)
Your vouches
Who you stand behind, for what, and whether that still holds. A withdrawn vouch stays visible; disappearing history is how a record quietly becomes a reputation system.
Anna (example)for honest about garment conditionsince 2026-03-02
Ben (example)for lends and returnssince 2026-01-10, withdrawn 2026-07-30
Offered to you
Offered by Anna (example), whom you vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition)
Wool blazer, moss
Topexample
2 measured0 declared0 not measured
Too narrow in the shoulder for me now.
Second handdeclared, Anna
Brand
Schneiderei BeispieldeclaredAnna, from the labelconfidence 0.50, below 0.7
Style code
not measurednot measured
Size on label
40declaredAnna, from the labelconfidence 0.50, below 0.7
All dimensions used were measured by an instrument.
Chestfits, +13 cm
Sleevefits, +3 cm
ColourNear your palettenot confident
Your colour typing is a coin flip between autumn and winter, so this reads as a comparison, not a verdict.
Nearest in Soft Autumn: #6B5F4E, distance 28
Nearest in Deep Winter: #15161A, distance 12
Heuristic, not science
Offered by someone Anna (example) vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Lena (example) (her device reads what mine reads, we checked them against each other)
Wool overcoat, charcoal
Outerwearexample
2 measured0 declared0 not measured
Bought new two winters ago, worn little, never washed. Through my device this week.
All dimensions used were measured by an instrument.
Chestfits, +12.5 cm
Sleevefits, +2 cm
ColourOutside your palettenot confident
Your colour typing is a coin flip between autumn and winter, so this reads as a comparison, not a verdict.
Nearest in Soft Autumn: #6B5F4E, distance 28
Nearest in Deep Winter: #15161A, distance 11
Heuristic, not science
Offered by someone Anna (example) vouched for.
you vouched for Anna (example) (honest about garment condition); Anna (example) vouched for Lena (example) (her device reads what mine reads, we checked them against each other)
Straight jeans, indigo, stretch
Trousersexample
3 measured0 declared0 not measured
Six years old. The waistband does not pull back the way it did. Measured on my device.