What goes wrong

The catalog was asked a question it cannot answer

On this page13

The capacity field was read as a fill weight So four of the six leaves cannot be settled here Which is not a reason to guess The fix is one measurement on your side The shelf was read as tailored to this category Identical down to a stray row Because the archetype is assigned at the spoke Which matters when you are comparing categories Both gaps are index and catalog work And the archetype itself is only approximately right So treat the shelf as a format list rather than a recommendation Stated so the position is known References

Two data gaps, both stated. Neither is fixed by reading harder.

The capacity field was read as a fill weight

It is a volume in millilitres. The mass of what goes in it is a property of the product and we have no field for it.

So four of the six leaves cannot be settled here

Gummies, chocolate and baked goods are referenced in grams. Our data reaches the liquid leaves and stops.

Which is not a reason to guess

A published estimated fill weight would be wrong for most recipes and would be acted on as though it were measured. Absent beats wrong.

The fix is one measurement on your side

Fill a jar, weigh the contents, compare against double the reference amount. Specific to your product, which a catalog figure could never be.

The shelf was read as tailored to this category

It is not. The same 97 containers and 260 closures answer edibles, concentrates and flower, and adjacent botanicals.

Identical down to a stray row

Including one deodorant container that belongs in none of the three. Same counts, families, colors and neck finishes.

Because the archetype is assigned at the spoke

And inherited by every leaf beneath it. Nineteen leaves resolve to one archetype and therefore to one shelf.

Which matters when you are comparing categories

Browsing concentrates and then browsing edibles looks like two assessments of the same jar. It is one.

Both gaps are index and catalog work

A mass field per product would close the first. Archetype assignment at the leaf level, or a second axis for interior finish, would close the second.

And the archetype itself is only approximately right

It flags this group light sensitive, which fits, and it allows glass and PP, which fits. It has no way to say that a shatter jar and a brownie jar want different interiors.

So treat the shelf as a format list rather than a recommendation

Wide mouth jars in glass or PP between 30 and 473 mL is a true description of what is here. Which of them suits your product is a judgment the index did not make.

Stated so the position is known

Rather than inferred from pages that read as though the data were there. The same discipline as the hazmat property, for the same reason.

References

Our capacity field is in millilitres, measured on 19 October 2026 for all 97 containers in this group. Four of the reference amounts above are expressed in grams: hard candies 2 g, all other candies 30 g, cookies 30 g, brownies 40 g. We publish volume and the rule asks for mass, so for gummies, chocolate and baked goods our data cannot establish which band a jar falls in. The liquid leaves can be answered from it.

Measured 19 October 2026. The three cannabis groups edibles, concentrates and flower, and adjacent botanicals return the same 97 containers and 260 closures, identical in count, family, color and neck finish down to a single stray deodorant container. The cause is that our index assigns a packaging archetype at the spoke level, and all three spokes resolve to the same one. 19 leaves, one shelf.

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026. The edibles shelf is 357 rows: 97 containers and 260 closures. 30 to 473 mL with a median of 177, every container with a capacity on file. 22 under 60 mL, 2 between 60 and 90, 73 over 90. By count: 23 at 237 mL, 21 at 118, 17 at 59, 13 at 473, 6 at 177, 6 at 355, 3 at 30. 66 PP and 31 glass, with no PET, HDPE or metal. 78 jars, 12 tubs and pails, 6 bottles, 1 tube. 29 white, 24 natural, 19 clear, 11 black, 8 amber, 4 frosted, 2 blue. Closures: 164 continuous thread polypropylene lids, 39 metal or aluminum CT caps, 22 dome lids, 14 child resistant, 9 sealing discs, 6 round tub lids, 3 phenolic, 2 metal overshell lids.

Written from 21 CFR 101.9 and 101.12 and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. The serving-size rules quoted here are the federal food-labeling rules; dose caps, potency labeling, child-resistant packaging and exit packaging for a licensed cannabis edible are set state by state and nothing here describes them. Four of the reference amounts that matter on this shelf are expressed in grams and our capacity field is in millilitres, so for gummies, chocolate and baked goods our data cannot tell you which band a jar falls in.