{"id":15193,"date":"2026-11-05T15:54:11","date_gmt":"2026-11-05T07:54:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/?p=15193"},"modified":"2026-11-05T16:05:58","modified_gmt":"2026-11-05T08:05:58","slug":"t1-samples-injection-molding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/t1-samples-injection-molding\/","title":{"rendered":"T1 Samples in Injection Molding: The Evidence Package"},"content":{"rendered":"

A carton of T1 samples in injection molding with unlabeled parts and a page of green checkmarks proves exactly one thing: plastic reached that cavity at least once. The package that makes T2 cheap and production boring carries three receipts instead. Parts traceable to cavity and shot window, with a cavity weight spread anyone can recompute (our four-cavity example below lands at 4.3%). Process captured as what the machine actually did, not what the operator hoped. And the tool recorded in its trial state, because between T1 and T2 someone will quietly polish a vent.<\/p>\n

A courier box lands on your desk: forty tan PA66-GF30 clips, a dimension report with mostly green cells, and an email that says “T1 samples attached, please comment.” Everything looks fine. Two months later, the first production lot fails an assembly torque check and nobody can reconstruct which cavity the good samples even came from. We have untangled versions of this box on both sides of the buyer-supplier table, and the pattern is consistent: T1 fails not as a molding event but as a documentation event, quietly, while everyone is happy about getting parts at all.<\/p>\n

This article treats the T1 package as an evidence problem with three receipts: the parts receipt, the process receipt, and the tool receipt. Our companion piece on sample approval gates<\/a> covers the decision flow, what to sign, when to refuse; this one covers what has to be in the box for that decision to mean anything twelve months from now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The three receipts<\/th>\n The question each answers<\/th>\n Cheap version<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Parts receipt<\/td>\n Which cavity, which shots, measured when?<\/td>\n Cavity labels plus shot window on every sample bag<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Process receipt<\/td>\n What did the machine actually run?<\/td>\n A trace photo, not a typed summary<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tool receipt<\/td>\n Was the mold still in this state when T2 ships?<\/td>\n A trial-state checklist with open deviations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
$\"cover\"$ <\/p>\n
Why Trust This T1 Guide?<\/h2>\n
We build and trial our own tools, which means we sign our own T1 paperwork. When a four-cavity connector trial produces a cavity offset, there is no second party to blame and no reason to beautify the report; the same shop that measured the samples has to explain them at the next trial, to the same customer, with the same machine attached. Twenty-plus years of tooling and molding, ISO 9001 with records an auditor can pull, and inspection on shop CMMs with calibration clocks we actually honor. The numbers in this article are either arithmetic on the stated example data or typical magnitudes from our own trial packages and public standards, labeled as such. Where a claim depends on your contract or your material, we say so instead of inventing a universal limit, because a universal cosmetic limit invented by a molder you have never met is worth exactly what you paid for it.<\/p>\n
Is a T1 an FAI, a PPAP, or Just a Test?<\/h2>\n
Words carry contractual weight, and the T1 package inherits whatever you call it. A T1 trial is a development event: the first informative run of a new tool, answering whether the mold fills, packs, releases, and measures within reach of print. A first article inspection under AS9102 is a contractual record format with defined forms and recertification triggers; AIAG’s PPAP is something heavier still, evidence that a production-intent process running at production rate on production tooling can meet print consistently. None of those three obligations is satisfied automatically by the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Event<\/th>\n What it actually proves<\/th>\n Common misread<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
T1 trial<\/td>\n The tool can produce informative parts<\/td>\n “Samples approved, start production”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FAI<\/td>\n The first article conforms, documented form by form<\/td>\n Accepting T1 data as FAI without cavity and method records<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PPAP<\/td>\n The production process is capable and authorized<\/td>\n Believing a development-shot Cpk belongs in the PPAP<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Call the box what it is. If your program requires FAI or PPAP-style evidence at T1, say so in the purchase order, because a supplier optimizing for “looks fine” will not volunteer the paperwork that a supplier told “FAI package with cavity reporting” treats as the deliverable.<\/p>\n
Receipt 1: What Do the Parts Actually Prove?<\/h2>\n
A part that cannot name its origin is a sample, not evidence. The floor: every submitted part traces to a cavity, a shot window (say, shots 40 through 60, after thermal steady state), a material lot, and a selection method that is not “the nice ones.” Four practical marking routes, in ascending cost: segregate by shot window into labeled bags; mark cavities with the mold’s own telltales (gate witness, ejector pin patterns) and photograph the map; etch cavity numbers into non-functional mold areas before the trial so the parts arrive pre-labeled; or, on multi-cavity tools where identity really matters, hot-runner valve-gate timing patterns. Cheap bag and marker beats sophisticated regret.<\/p>\n
$\"Freshly$ <\/p>\n
First-shot parts separated by cavity before any measurement: the bag labels are the report’s foundation.<\/em><\/p>\n
Then the one number that catches cavity problems early, in full arithmetic so you can reuse it. Four cavities, five consecutive shots each, part weights in grams:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Cavity<\/th>\n Shot means (g)<\/th>\n Cavity mean<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1<\/td>\n 41.9, 41.8, 42.0, 41.8, 41.9<\/td>\n 41.88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n 42.1, 42.0, 42.2, 42.1, 42.1<\/td>\n 42.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n 40.2, 40.4, 40.3, 40.1, 40.3<\/td>\n 40.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n 42.0, 41.9, 42.1, 42.0, 42.0<\/td>\n 42.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Grand mean = 41.56 g. Cavity-to-cavity mean spread = (42.10 \u2212 40.26) \u00f7 41.56 = 4.4 percent, and the pooled within-cavity spread is under 0.6 percent. That signature, big offset between cavities, tiny scatter inside them, says one cavity runs cold, partly short, or is a different insert revision. A pooled average of all twenty parts would read 41.56 with a modest standard deviation and a smile. Weight is a diagnostic, not an acceptance value; it points the investigation, the dimension report closes it.<\/p>\n
When Were the Parts Last Honest? The Conditioning Clock<\/h2>\n
A hot PA66-GF30 boss measured off the press is a dimension of the moment, not of the part. Semi-crystalline polymers keep shrinking as they cool through their crystallization window, and hygroscopic nylons then swell back as they drink moisture; the two clocks run in opposite directions and neither one is finished at the ejector. Standard practice conditions specimens at 23 \u00b0C and 50 percent relative humidity per ISO 291 before dimensional acceptance, with our own POM shrinkage guide<\/a> walking through the 24 and 48 hour clocks on the acetal side, where the drift runs the other way. Acetal parts measured warm read large, then give back up to 0.1 mm per 100 mm of bore as they finish crystallizing. Glass-filled nylon measured bone-dry reads small on some features and drunk-stable reads nothing at all if your assembly ships to a humid coast.<\/p>\n
Three rules keep the clock from lying. Record what you measured and when: as-molded at 2 hours post-ejection versus conditioned at 24 hours are different datasets and belong on different columns, never averaged together. State the conditioning in the report header, atmosphere, duration, and the instrument used for each critical feature. And decide, in the drawing or the quality plan, which state is contractual: parts accepted warm and shipped warm may still legitimately move in your incoming inspection at week three, and that argument is settled by the paper, not by volume in the parking lot.<\/p>\n
Does Thirty Shots Prove a Cpk?<\/h2>\n
No, and the math is public. Capability indices assume a stable process estimated from enough data. At n = 30, the 95 percent confidence interval on the standard deviation stretches to roughly 1.34 times the point estimate on its upper end, which means a computed Cpk of 1.67 from thirty consecutive shots can honestly be reprinted as 1.24, under the customary 1.33 gate, without a single new measurement. The estimate also inherits every assumption it never passed: that the shots came from a stable production-intent process (a warm-up trial is trending, not stable), that the measurement error is negligible (it is not, per ISO 14253-1’s decision-rule warning), and that the distribution is normal (one cavity runs a half-degree colder than the others).<\/p>\n
$\"Dial$ <\/p>\n
Measurement infrastructure before interpretation: a height gauge and gauge blocks on granite, the honest baseline for any capability claim.<\/em><\/p>\n
What to claim at T1 instead: the numbers that are true. Individual values with cavity identity, means and ranges per cavity, time order so warm-up drift is visible, and named special causes (“shots 12 through 19 skipped a cavity due to sticking”). If capability is contractually required at approval, run the study under production conditions after the process is set: a minimum of 100 consecutive parts or 25 subgroups, machine, cavities, material lot, and window recorded, and a stated method. A supplier who volunteers that their T1 Cpk “would be meaningless” just told you they know what a real one costs.<\/p>\n
Receipt 2: The Process, Captured as It Ran<\/h2>\n
Setpoints are intentions; machine actuals are history. A T1 process record worth keeping starts with a photo of the controller screen at sample time, yes, a photo, because typed summaries drift into fiction and pixel evidence does not, plus the machine’s shot-level trace export where available. The fields that matter for reconstructing a part: injection profile split and changeover position in millimeters, cushion at pack end, peak injection pressure, screw recovery time, pack pressure and time, mold zone actuals (setpoint 65 \u00b0C with a clogged half-circuit reading 48 \u00b0C is a different process than your paperwork claims), melt temperature, cycle composition, and dryer behavior, desiccant dew point, drying temperature and hours, resin lot number, moisture reading at the press if the material earns it, regrind percentage and its source stream.<\/p>\n
The record’s soul is the change log: every mid-trial adjustment with its time and which shots followed it. Cavity 3 weight dropped after the 14:20 nozzle temperature increase. Samples 31 through 40 are post-change. Without that line, your T2 engineer inherits a mystery, re-tunes by ear, changes three things at once, and the next trial proves nothing either.<\/p>\n
Receipt 3: The Tool Exactly as It Stood<\/h2>\n
Parts get preserved, but the mold is the other half of the experiment, and molds have amnesia. The trial-state record should pin: total shot count on the tool at the moment your samples were shot, which cavities got work between the trial start and your samples (vents re-cut, gates polished, a sticky slide stone-fitted), what steel was removed versus what is still authorized, and the state of the consumables, shut-off witness lines, ejector flash marks, corrosion on unsupported surfaces. A tool that produced your green report after an unplanned gate polish is a different tool than the one that started the day, and the T2 plan depends on which one you are quoting.<\/p>\n
$\"Rows$ <\/p>\n
Mold bases in storage wait for exactly this record: without trial state, steel has no memory.<\/em><\/p>\n
This receipt protects the molder too. Every shop has a story where a buyer’s own field failure traced back to a change the buyer requested and never wrote down; the tool record is the shared memory that ends those arguments. Remaining correction stock belongs in it, too: on a 100 mm dimension, if trial shrinkage ran 0.1 percent under target, steel has roughly 0.1 mm of usable correction there and your report should say what is left before cavities start running out of room.<\/p>\n
How Does the Issue List Stop T2 From Being Another Lottery?<\/h2>\n
Every failed or borderline characteristic becomes a numbered line with six fields: requirement and its drawing note, the measured evidence with cavity and method, a named mechanism hypothesis (not “out of tolerance”), the proposed action classified as process-reversible or steel-irreversible, an owner and a date, and the verification that closes it, meaning which feature on which cavity, measured how, after what. The reversible-versus-irreversible split is the field that saves money. A sink mark that a pack-pressure curve might fix is a process line; the same sink after the curve is exhausted becomes a steel line, add material at the boss, and steel lines need the tool record’s correction-stock column before anyone reaches for the cutter.<\/p>\n
T2 is then not a second trial but a verification event: the plan says which issue numbers are expected to close, which measurements repeat on which cavities, and, explicitly, what does not change in between. That last clause is the rarest and most valuable sentence in the whole package, because the classic T2 failure is a “routine” parameter tune on the molder’s side silently re-randomizing a feature your team was about to sign. Freeze the unbroken things. If a feature is in tolerance, it gets reported as frozen, not re-rolled.<\/p>\n
Case Study: When Pooled Data Was Green and the Assembly Was Red<\/h2>\n
A tier-one customer brought us a four-cavity connector housing program already underway elsewhere: T1 had shipped with a compliant-looking dimension report, pooled statistics, Cpk 1.51 overall, released for prototype build. At their line, roughly one housing in fourteen failed a thread-insert press-fit. Nobody could say whether the failures clustered by cavity, because the samples had been bagged by convenience.<\/p>\n
\n
Challenge: find the mechanism without cavity identity on 2,400 shipped housings, under a build freeze.<\/li>\n
Actions: we rebuilt traceability backward, insert tooling marks separated cavities photographically, then re-measured 300 random housings cavity-tagged: one cavity ran 0.11 mm low on the insert bore with its own tight scatter, a classic single-cavity offset hiding inside a pooled Cpk that averaged three good cavities around one lean one. The thread-insert supplier’s press-fit window was 0.05 mm wide.<\/li>\n
Results: cavity 4 insert shimmed, 300-piece verification at 1.4 Cpk on that bore alone with cavity-level reporting, failures at the line: zero over the following 40k pieces. The shim cost less than two thousand dollars in tooling time. The eight-week detection drag, containment sort, and two scrapped builds did not come cheap.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Same as the four-cavity weight example above, this is cavity data doing what pooled data structurally cannot: naming which steel to touch.<\/p>\n
When Is the Full Package Overkill?<\/h2>\n
Honest answer: often, and demanding everything is its own failure mode. A single-cavity soft-aluminum prototype tool used for fit checks earns a couple of labeled parts and a photo of the process screen; a Cpk study on a tool rated for 5,000 shots is theater, and CT scanning every shot to chase a void nobody specified is a bill you will not get back. The three receipts scale with the decision they support: one cavity, one use, one decision, keep the box light. Scale the evidence when the next step spends real money, meaning production steel, release to assembly, safety or sealing functions, or a supplier relationship you have not yet earned the right to trust loosely. The anti-pattern in the other direction is also real: buyers who accept a green summary email on a 16-cavity connector tool are not being efficient, they are moving the future failure into a more expensive lab, their customer’s field.<\/p>\n
The One-Page T1 Acceptance Sheet<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Receipt<\/th>\n Item<\/th>\n Core or conditional<\/th>\n The acceptance question<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Pi\u00e8ces<\/td>\n Cavity and shot-window labels<\/td>\n Core<\/td>\n Can any submitted part name its origin?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pi\u00e8ces<\/td>\n Cavity-level dimension and weight data<\/td>\n Core on multi-cavity<\/td>\n Do offsets survive the pooled average?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pi\u00e8ces<\/td>\n Conditioning state and measure time<\/td>\n Core for acceptance dims<\/td>\n Do report values match the contract’s part state?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Processus<\/td>\n Screen photo or trace export, change log<\/td>\n Core<\/td>\n Is the process that made these parts reconstructable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Processus<\/td>\n Drying, lot, regrind records<\/td>\n Core for hygroscopic or regulated resins<\/td>\n Is the moisture story told?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capability<\/td>\n Formal Cpk study<\/td>\n Conditional, production-intent only<\/td>\n Would the claim survive its own confidence interval?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tool<\/td>\n Shot count and mid-trial work record<\/td>\n Core<\/td>\n Does the mold’s memory match the parts’ story?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tool<\/td>\n Correction stock remaining<\/td>\n Conditional on tolerance-critical features<\/td>\n How many steel moves are left?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Disposition<\/td>\n Issue list with owners and T2 verification plan<\/td>\n Core<\/td>\n Is the next trial a test or a guess?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Questions fr\u00e9quemment pos\u00e9es<\/h2>\n
How many T1 samples should I ask for per cavity?<\/h3>\n
Enough that each cavity’s story survives your destructive and functional tests plus a retained golden set with margin, which in practice means five to ten shots’ worth per cavity for small parts and a full documented matrix when tests consume parts. Sample count is a computation from your test plan, not a courtesy number; ask for more and you mostly buy noise unless every extra part still carries its labels.<\/p>\n
Can I use T1 samples for assembly trials?<\/h3>\n
Yes, if they are labeled as development parts and your team knows what the parts are not: not a capability-proven population, sometimes not even final tool state. The failure mode is “works on T1 parts, fails at production” being treated as a surprise. Track T1 parts by lot, keep them out of customer-facing builds, and re-run the assembly trial on T2 or production-intent parts when the fit matters.<\/p>\n
Is a Cpk of 1.33 at T1 good news?<\/h3>\n
It is a data point, not a verdict. Thirty to sixty shots from a settling trial understate variation the way a first sprint understates a marathon; the number that matters is the full production-intent study after the process is frozen, run with cavities reported separately, and reported honestly. If a supplier puts a big T1 Cpk at the top of the email, look for the fine print on sample size and stability, and find out how they measured the rest of the report.<\/p>\n
What conditioning do my plastic samples need before I measure?<\/h3>\n
At minimum, 23 \u00b0C and 50 percent RH storage per ISO 291 with 24 hours as the common baseline and 48 hours for semi-crystalline or hygroscopic materials, and the report states which you got. PA66 and POM move measurably across that window in opposite directions depending on starting state, which is exactly why mixing warm and conditioned values in one table is the oldest lie in injection molding metrology.<\/p>\n
Should cosmetic approvals happen at T1?<\/h3>\n
Yes, and deliberately early, because appearance is a negotiation with the tool and cosmetics are where limit samples earn their keep. Review cosmetic condition under agreed lighting, grade features against a written A, B, C surface map, and seal limit samples for the borderline calls; the same defect-class discipline we lay out in the quality agreement guide<\/a> applies at trial scale.<\/p>\n
Who owns the T1 sample set afterward?<\/h3>\n
Both sides keep a sealed set, same rules as golden samples: signed, dated, stored at ambient conditions, referenced in the PO. One side alone always loses parts to the project gravity of a shop floor, and the sealed set is what settles the six-months-later “these never looked like that” conversation in thirty seconds instead of thirty thousand dollars of sorting.<\/p>\n
What changes between T1 and T2 most often breaks the re-measurement?<\/h3>\n
Silent parameter drift. Someone shortens cycle time after T1, the pack curve moves, and the re-measure at T2 compares parts from two different processes against a drawing that changed with neither. The change log prevents it; a freeze clause in the trial plan (“no changes outside the issue list without written notice”) prevents it harder.<\/p>\n
Do T1 records matter for regulated or automotive programs?<\/h3>\n
They matter as raw material for the real submission. A PPAP built on reconstructable T1 records costs a fraction of one reverse-engineered after a quality event, because traceability, tool history, and process documentation are all generated once and reused everywhere downstream. Regulated programs should simply state at PO level that trial documentation feeds the submission, so nobody optimizes for a prettier email.<\/p>\n
Summary: T1 Is Evidence, Not a Milestone<\/h2>\n
Treat T1 samples in injection molding as the founding documents of your production history: a parts receipt that names every cavity and clock, a process receipt that records actuals and changes, a tool receipt that freezes the mold’s memory. Report the honest statistics at the honest sample sizes, let the issue list separate a pack-curve tweak from a steel move, and make T2 a verification instead of a reroll. The discipline fits on one page and fails on one shortcut: a single unlabeled sample bag is usually where a six-figure story starts. The whole package costs about a day of paperwork against a five-figure tool investment; skipping it costs whatever your first surprise shipment costs, times your reaction time, plus the relationship you spend explaining it. Send us your trial report and we will show you what the three receipts would have caught, free, alongside your next DFM. Talk to our engineering team<\/a><\/strong>, drawings stay under NDA and the first review lands inside 24 hours.<\/p>\n
Sources<\/h2>\n
\n
AIAG, Production Part Approval Process (PPAP), 4th edition: production-run evidence requirements distinct from development trials.<\/li>\n
SAE International, AS9102 First Article Inspection Requirements: FAI forms, recertification triggers, cavity-level reporting expectations on multi-cavity tooling.<\/li>\n
ISO 291:2008, Plastics: Standard test atmospheres for conditioning and testing (23 \u00b0C and 50 percent RH baseline).<\/li>\n
ISO 14253-1, Decision rules for proving conformity or nonconformity: measurement uncertainty near tolerance limits.<\/li>\n
ASTM D955, Standard Test Methods for Measuring Shrinkage From Mold Dimensions of Thermoplastics: specimen conditioning intervals and post-mold dimensional drift practice.<\/li>\n
NIST\/SEMATECH Engineering Statistics Handbook, process capability section: confidence intervals on capability estimates and the stability precondition.<\/li>\n
Ideal Pro internal trial records: four-cavity weight example and connector housing case figures, anonymized and rounded.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Standards are cited by number and title because full texts sit behind the publishers’ paywalls; the clauses this article leans on (FAI forms and recertification triggers, PPAP’s production-run evidence definition, conditioning atmospheres, conformity decision rules) are also summarized in the publishers’ public scope notes. A supplier or audit-prep team should work from purchased copies, not from any blog, this one included; treat the numbers here as the shape of the argument and your contracted standard copies as the source of the exact requirement. That split between engineering judgment and contractual text is the same line the T1 samples in injection molding draw between informative and official.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T1 samples in injection molding as an evidence package: cavity traceability, process actuals, tool state, honest stats, and a one-page gate.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15189,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"default","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"page_builder":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15193"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15193\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15197,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15193\/revisions\/15197"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ideal-pro.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}