The bound was read as the number
On this page11
Our figure was taken as the total
It is pi times diameter times height, which is the cylinder side wall. The regulation measures total surface area available to bear labeling.
So a container near the boundary was misclassified
A container at 35 square inches on our figure may be over 40 in the regulation's measure, which moves it out of the 6 point band.
The safe direction was not taken
Designing to the smaller band when you may be entitled to more is permitted. Designing to the larger band and being in the smaller one is not.
16 containers were assumed to be computable
Height is published on 152 of 163 and diameter on 147, so 16 lack one or both. For those our data answers nothing.
The small package relief was expected to apply
None of our 147 measurable containers is under 12 square inches, so the 4.5 point allowance does not reach this shelf at all.
And smaller was assumed to be simpler
It is the reverse. A small package gets a smaller permitted type and a harder layout, because the bands are relief provisions rather than concessions.
The hairline allowance was treated as a style choice
It applies where space is constrained. A container with room is expected to carry the full panel with its rules intact.
The panel was budgeted on its own
It competes with an ingredient list, a net quantity statement and a name and place of business for the same surface, and none of those is described here.
Our capacity was used as a label area proxy
It is not one. A 355 mL jar can be short and wide or tall and narrow, with different areas, which is exactly why the rule measures area.
Measure the container you are buying
Height and diameter are published on most of this shelf, so the bound is available before anything is ordered.