Capability note: Eligible Virtual Try-On

Eligible Virtual Try-On is documented as a V1 capability with merchant setup and image-privacy pages. This archive note does not add fit guarantees or a return-rate claim.

The public sentence remains: Virtual Try-On is a visualization for eligible products. It is not an exact-fit assessment. Shopper images are handled as described on the legal privacy page.

Where the living documentation is

• Virtual Try-On — product capability language.
• Virtual Try-On Setup — documented merchant steps only.
• Virtual Try-On and Image Privacy — public image-handling description. Do not paraphrase it stronger.

What “eligible” means for operators

Eligibility is a merchandising and product fact, not a campaign mood. Forcing visualization on ineligible items trains shoppers to treat the feature as decoration. For eligible items, visualization can reduce uncertainty; it does not replace size charts, garment construction, or return policy. Footwear and jewelry teams should not hear “try-on” as a sizing device or materials certificate.

Knowledge language

Put the visualization sentence in Merchant Knowledge. Put the privacy URL in support macros. Do not add a fit proof. Do not add a biometric story the legal page does not state.

Setup and verification

1. List in-scope and out-of-scope product types before clicking setup.
2. Follow Help Center only; do not paste unverified snippets.
3. Test an eligible SKU and an ineligible SKU on staging.
4. Confirm staff can find the privacy URL.
5. Confirm ads do not outrun the visualization sentence.

Launch sequence context: Getting Started. Storefront assistant context: AI Shopping Assistant.

How to talk about it internally

Call it eligible visualization. Do not call it exact-fit. Do not use it as a cart-recovery script (“see, it fits”). Cart stalls from missing size truth are catalog and knowledge problems; see Reduce Cart Abandonment without inventing a recovery percentage.

Privacy is part of the capability

Shoppers and retail staff will ask what happens to a photo. The answer is the public legal page, not a remembered sentence from a demo. Do not invent retention periods, biometric identification, or “we never store anything” claims unless that page says so. If a regional retailer needs a stronger statement, that is a legal conversation—not a merchandising prompt.

Support should have the privacy URL in a macro before try-on is offered on a live theme. Knowledge should repeat visualization language so the assistant does not “helpfully” upgrade it to a fit proof during a cart stall.

Where try-on sits in the journey

Exploration and narrowing still depend on catalog attributes. Try-on is an evaluation aid for eligible SKUs, not a discovery engine that invents garments. If a product is ineligible, the assistant should continue with catalog facts, published size notes, or an in-catalog alternative—not force a preview.

Paid creative that implies “see your exact size” is incompatible with this capability note. Media and merchandising should use the same sentence the store uses. Observational outcomes, if reviewed, stay on Track Assistant Outcomes without a return-rate model.

Failure modes

• Setup snippets from a forum instead of Help Center.
• Eligible flag decided by a campaign producer instead of merchandising.
• Sales floor language that try-on “proves fit.”
• Using try-on to paper over missing size variants.

Related reading

Academy module on eligibility in Academy (reading track, no certificate). Session brief in Webinars (written on-demand, no Zoom ID). Industry pages Fashion, Footwear, and Bridal for assortment context—not for a fit algorithm.

This note will not add a version number or unpublished enhancement. Dated changes, when approved, publish as their own archive entries. Portal knowledge controls: Merchant Portal.

Who has to agree before setup

Merchandising names eligible types. Support owns the privacy URL macro. Ecommerce follows only Virtual Try-On Setup. Media agrees not to advertise exact fit. If those four agreements are missing, delay storefront try-on. A live preview with sales-floor folklore is worse than no preview.

Fashion, footwear, jewelry, and bridal teams should not share one eligibility joke. A dress visualization is not a ring sizer and not a last. Industry pages exist so assortment context stays honest: Fashion, Footwear, Jewelry, Bridal.

A verification script you can reuse

1. Eligible SKU: visualization is offered and language stays on visualization.
2. Ineligible SKU: no forced preview; catalog facts or an in-catalog alternative instead.
3. Privacy question: staff sends the legal URL without paraphrase.
4. Ad review: no “exact size” claim in live creative.
5. Knowledge: the same visualization sentence the store uses.

Cart recovery is not a try-on use case. Missing sizes and missing shipping facts are catalog and knowledge work. See Reduce Cart Abandonment without inventing a recovery rate. Observational outcomes: Track Assistant Outcomes.

Campaign and storefront must match

If an ad implies exact fit, the capability is being misrepresented regardless of setup quality. Pull the ad or rewrite it to visualization language. Shoppers believe the louder sentence. Product page: Virtual Try-On.

This archive note still adds no version number, no return-rate math, and no unpublished enhancement. Dated changes publish separately on Product Updates.

Staff, ads, and knowledge must use the same visualization sentence. If they diverge, shoppers will believe the strongest claim, which is usually the wrong one. Do not use try-on to cover missing size variants. Those are catalog work. Virtual Try-On Setup.

Send shoppers the privacy page rather than a paraphrase whenever they ask what happens to a photo.