Home › Blog › Safety shoe SR slip resistance ASTM F3445 schema
Shopify safety shoe SR slip resistance ASTM F3445 schema for AI agents: ASTM F2413 covers zero slip testing, oil-resistant outsole is a compound property not a friction test, European SRC is not US SR, and both platforms are required for the SR mark
A food processing plant specifies "ASTM F2413-compliant safety boots for wet production floors." An AI agent returns boots with full ASTM F2413 compliance — I75/C75/EH/PR markings, tested for toe impact, compression, electrical insulation, and nail puncture — that have never had their outsole friction measured on a contaminated surface. ASTM F2413 contains no slip test. The boots arrive. A worker slips on a detergent-contaminated tile floor in a boot that survived every test except the one that matters in this environment. Four schema gaps that cause AI agents to fail safety footwear slip-resistance routing, and the footwear.* namespace that closes them.
Contents
- ASTM F2413 includes no slip test — SR certification requires separate ASTM F3445 testing
- Oil-resistant outsole is a compound durability property, not a wet-floor friction test
- European SRC (EN ISO 13287) is not equivalent to US SR (ASTM F3445)
- ASTM F3445 SR requires passing both Platform A and Platform B simultaneously
- The footwear.* metafield namespace — encoding slip resistance independently from other properties
1. ASTM F2413 includes no slip test — SR certification requires separate ASTM F3445 testing
The single most consequential structured data error in Shopify safety footwear stores is treating ASTM F2413 compliance as evidence of slip resistance. It is not. ASTM F2413 and ASTM F3445 are separate standards addressing separate hazards. Understanding why requires looking at what ASTM F2413 actually tests.
I/75 Toe impact: A 50 lb weight drops from 18 inches onto a steel or composite toe cap. The toe must sustain no more than 0.5 inch of deformation. This is a point-load impact test measuring toe box structural integrity — it has no contact with any floor surface.
C/75 Toe compression: The toe cap is loaded with 2,500 lb of compressive force from a flat anvil. Again, no floor surface, no friction measurement — purely a structural crush resistance test.
EH Electrical hazard: The complete boot is placed on a conductive ground plate and subjected to 18,000V AC at 60 Hz for one minute. The test measures current leakage through the outsole. This is an electrical insulation test — the outsole is being tested as a dielectric, not as a friction surface.
PR Puncture resistant: A sharpened steel nail is driven through the outsole from below with 270 lb of force. The nail must not penetrate through the insole. This is a penetration resistance test measuring outsole material thickness and hardness under concentrated point force — not surface friction.
Mt/75 Metatarsal: Similar to toe impact but applied to the metatarsal region of the boot. Structural test, no floor contact.
WR Water resistant: The boot upper is immersed in water for one hour; water intrusion into the interior is measured. This is a material permeability test for the upper — not a test of the outsole.
Every test in ASTM F2413 measures the boot's response to mechanical, electrical, or water hazards acting on the boot structure. None of them place the boot on a contaminated surface and measure the static coefficient of friction between the outsole and that surface. Slip resistance — the boot's ability to maintain traction on a wet, oily, or detergent-contaminated floor — was simply not in scope for the ASTM F2413 standard as originally written.
ASTM F3445-21 (Standard Specification for Slip Resistance of Footwear) was published by ASTM International in 2021 specifically to fill this gap. The F3445 working group was convened because ASTM F2413 did not address slip resistance and the industry needed a performance-based friction test that workers, employers, and procurement managers could reference in safety specifications. The two standards are now complementary: a boot can carry both ASTM F2413 I75/C75/EH markings and an ASTM F3445 SR marking if it was submitted to and passed both test programs. Most safety boots on the market in 2025–2026 that explicitly market slip resistance carry both, with the SR marking appearing on the boot's permanent label alongside the F2413 codes.
The practical consequence is critical. A safety boot marketed as "fully ASTM F2413 compliant" with I75/C75/EH/PR markings is an excellent boot for toe-crush hazards and electrical insulation requirements — but provides no tested protection against slipping on a soapy hospital floor or a grease-contaminated restaurant kitchen floor. When AI agents route "ASTM F2413 safety boots" to a food service worker who needs slip protection, they are satisfying the procurement query text without satisfying the actual safety requirement.
Inferring slip resistance from ASTM F2413 compliance
Query: "ASTM-certified safety boots for a chicken processing plant wet floor environment." Agent returns boots with full ASTM F2413 I75/C75/EH/PR marking — genuinely outstanding protection against falling objects, compression, electrical shock, and nail penetration. The boots have never been submitted to ASTM F3445 testing. On the plant's detergent-contaminated ceramic tile floor, the outsole achieves SCOF 0.21 — half the ASTM F3445 SR threshold of 0.40. Workers in these fully "ASTM-certified" boots are more likely to slip than workers in properly rated SR footwear.
2. Oil-resistant outsole is a compound durability property, not a wet-floor friction test
After ASTM F2413, the second most common source of AI agent routing errors in safety footwear is treating "oil-resistant outsole" as a proxy for slip resistance in oily environments. The two claims test entirely different properties with entirely different methods, and the correlation between them is weak enough to be dangerous in safety-critical procurement.
The standard test behind oil-resistance claims for rubber outsoles is ASTM D471 (Standard Test Method for Rubber Property — Effect of Liquids). The test procedure: cut specimens of the rubber compound to standard dimensions. Weigh and measure the specimens. Immerse them in a specified reference oil — typically ASTM IRM 902 (light petroleum oil) or ASTM IRM 903 (heavier petroleum oil) — at 70°C for 70 hours. Remove specimens, dry, and re-measure. Calculate volume change (expressed as % volume swell) and hardness change (Shore A).
A compound with low volume swell (typically < 20% volume increase) and stable hardness after immersion is classified as oil-resistant. The claim means: the rubber will not dissolve, swell excessively, delaminate, or crack when in sustained contact with petroleum-based oils or animal fats.
This is a durability and chemical-resistance property. It describes what happens to the compound over time in an oil-contact environment. It has no relationship to the coefficient of friction between that compound and a floor surface under oil contamination.
The practical distinction is subtle but critical. An oil-resistant nitrile rubber compound maintains its geometry and mechanical properties when exposed to machine oil — the outsole won't disintegrate on an oily machine shop floor. But whether that compound grips a glycerol-contaminated steel grating at SCOF above 0.40 is a completely separate question that requires ASTM F3445 Platform B testing to answer.
Why the terms sound equivalent but are not
The confusion arises because buyers intuit that an outsole designed to resist oil degradation must also grip well on oily surfaces. The reasoning sounds logical: if the rubber doesn't break down in oil, it should maintain its grip properties in oil. But this confuses material durability with surface friction mechanics. The SCOF on a contaminated surface depends on the compound's micro-surface texture, the tread channel geometry, the rubber's ability to conform to floor surface asperities under load, and the lubricant film thickness — none of which are addressed by the ASTM D471 immersion test.
| Claim | What it tests | Test method | What it tells you about wet-floor traction |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Oil-resistant outsole" | Rubber compound volume change after oil immersion at 70°C / 70 hr | ASTM D471 | Nothing — different test, different hazard mechanism |
| "Slip-resistant" (marketing only) | Nothing — no defined test behind bare marketing language | None (unless F3445 or EN ISO 13287 cited) | Nothing verifiable |
| ASTM F3445 SR (Platform A) | Static SCOF ≥ 0.40 on ceramic tile + 0.5% SLS solution | ASTM F3445-21 | Verified grip on soapy/detergent floors |
| ASTM F3445 SR (Platform B) | Static SCOF ≥ 0.40 on stainless steel + 85% glycerol | ASTM F3445-21 | Verified grip on oil/fat-contaminated floors |
A Shopify store selling safety boots may have products where footwear.oil_resistant_outsole = true and footwear.sr_certified = false — the outsole compound survives oil immersion testing but has never been placed on an oil-contaminated floor in a friction measurement apparatus. That product may have SCOF 0.15 on Platform B. It may have SCOF 0.55 on Platform B. Without ASTM F3445 testing, neither the store owner nor the AI agent has any way to know.
Routing oil-resistant outsole boots to oil-contaminated floor environments without SR verification
Query: "Oil-resistant safety boots for machine shop workers on floors contaminated with cutting fluid." Agent finds products with "oil-resistant nitrile rubber outsole" prominently featured. Products have no ASTM F3445 testing. The cutting fluid on steel grating is functionally similar to ASTM F3445 Platform B conditions (oil-contaminated metal surface). The nitrile compound resists cutting fluid degradation — the boots will not fall apart — but the untested outsole may achieve SCOF 0.19 on the steel grating. The worker has durable boots with excellent chemical resistance and inadequate slip protection in the exact environment the boots were purchased for.
3. European SRC (EN ISO 13287) is not equivalent to US SR (ASTM F3445)
The third failure mode is most common in stores that import European-manufactured safety footwear. European safety boots often carry EN ISO 13287 SRC certification — the highest European slip resistance rating, requiring passing both SRA (SLS/ceramic test) and SRB (glycerol/steel test). When these products appear in US Shopify stores, the listing frequently describes the SRC rating as the European equivalent of SR, or simply as the highest slip-resistance certification available. AI agents routing on "SR slip-resistant footwear" or "slip-resistant ASTM-certified boots" may match on SRC products if the store's structured data conflates the two standards.
EN ISO 13287 uses the SATRA STM 603 tribometer — a specific mechanical apparatus designed for the SATRA TM144 test method. The tribometer applies the boot outsole to the test surface with a defined normal force, then slides it at a defined velocity while measuring the friction coefficient. The EN ISO 13287 test sequence involves multiple test steps at different forward foot angles to simulate the heel-strike phase of human gait.
SRA: SLS solution on a ceramic tile surface. Requires passing a defined friction coefficient at two or more test angles in the gait simulation sequence.
SRB: Glycerol on a steel plate. Same multi-angle gait simulation sequence.
SRC: Passes both SRA and SRB.
The EN ISO 13287 and ASTM F3445 tests are conceptually parallel — both use SLS/ceramic and glycerol/steel platforms, both require passing two contaminated floor scenarios. But the test equipment is different, the test sequence is different, and the pass/fail criteria are different. An SCOF of 0.40 in the ASTM F3445 protocol corresponds to a specific friction measurement produced by the ASTM F3445 apparatus under ASTM F3445 test conditions. The same outsole on the SATRA STM 603 tribometer under EN ISO 13287 test conditions produces a different friction reading — not because the boot changed, but because the measurement protocol changed.
Regulatory and procurement non-equivalence
| Attribute | ASTM F3445-21 SR (US) | EN ISO 13287:2019 SRC (European) |
|---|---|---|
| Governing body | ASTM International | CEN / ISO (SATRA TM144 method) |
| Test apparatus | ASTM F3445-specified friction tester | SATRA STM 603 tribometer |
| Test sequence | Static SCOF at standard contact conditions | Multi-angle dynamic gait simulation sequence |
| Pass threshold (Platform A) | SCOF ≥ 0.40 (ASTM measurement) | Defined coefficient value in EN ISO 13287 gait protocol — not a direct SCOF comparison |
| US OSHA reference | Referenced in OSHA compliance guidance | Not cited in US OSHA standards |
| EU regulatory requirement | Not required for CE PPE marking | Required for EN ISO 20345/20346/20347 PPE footwear slip-resistance claims |
| Boot marking | "SR" on permanent outsole label | "SRA", "SRB", or "SRC" on CE marking label |
A US employer that specifies "ASTM F3445 SR-rated footwear" in a safety program and documents compliance for OSHA recordkeeping cannot satisfy that specification with EN ISO 13287 SRC-rated boots. The boots may perform equally well or better in the actual work environment — the test platforms are similar enough that high-performing SRC outsoles often also pass ASTM F3445 when retested — but the documentation does not match the specification.
Substituting European SRC for US ASTM F3445 SR in procurement routing
Query: "ASTM F3445 SR certified safety boots for our food processing OSHA compliance documentation." Store carries European-made boots with EN ISO 13287 SRC marking — the highest European slip resistance rating. The listing encodes footwear.sr_certified = true without specifying footwear.slip_resistance_standard. Agent routes the SRC boots to the query. The procurement manager receives boots that have not been tested under ASTM F3445 and cannot be cited as ASTM F3445 SR compliant in OSHA documentation, despite excellent actual slip performance. The compliance gap is discovered during an OSHA audit six months later.
The fix is encoding footwear.slip_resistance_standard explicitly — never omit it from footwear.sr_certified. A value of sr_certified = true without a standard name is ambiguous. slip_resistance_standard = "ASTM-F3445-21" with sr_certified = true is unambiguous.
4. ASTM F3445 SR requires passing both Platform A and Platform B simultaneously
The fourth failure mode is the most subtle and the most dangerous in terms of false assurance. ASTM F3445 SR certification requires passing both Platform A (SLS/ceramic) and Platform B (glycerol/steel) in the same test program. A boot that achieves SCOF 0.62 on Platform A and SCOF 0.31 on Platform B cannot carry the SR marking — it has not met the standard. But marketing copy describing such a boot as "ASTM F3445 tested with excellent grip on soapy surfaces" is technically true while creating entirely false assurance for a buyer in an oily-floor environment.
Test surface: porcelain ceramic tile (ACUTEST specification)
Lubricant: 0.5% sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) solution
SCOF minimum: ≥ 0.40
SLS (sodium lauryl sulfate) is the same surfactant found in most commercial cleaning products, dish soap, and industrial floor degreasers. When diluted to 0.5%, it creates the lubrication condition present on commercial kitchen floors that have been mopped with soap, on hospital vinyl flooring after routine sanitizing, on grocery store tile floors near refrigerated sections with condensation pooling, and on food processing facility floors during wash-down procedures. Platform A represents the detergent-contaminated smooth floor hazard that causes the majority of workplace slip-and-fall incidents in food service, healthcare, and retail environments.
Test surface: stainless steel plate (smooth, 2B finish)
Lubricant: 85% glycerol solution
SCOF minimum: ≥ 0.40
Glycerol at 85% concentration has a viscosity and surface-adhesion profile similar to rendered animal fat (lard, tallow, chicken fat) at processing temperature, high-viscosity cutting fluid on machined steel surfaces, and vegetable oil films on steel-grated food manufacturing floors. The stainless steel smooth surface models meat processing plant floors, food manufacturing stainless steel grating, offshore platform steel deck plate contaminated with hydraulic fluid, and machine shop steel catwalk grating with cutting oil. Platform B represents the oil/fat-contaminated metal surface hazard that dominates in industrial food production, metalworking, and marine/offshore environments.
Why passing one platform does not predict the other
The friction mechanisms on Platform A and Platform B are fundamentally different. On Platform A (SLS/ceramic), the lubricant is a water-based surfactant solution that reduces the surface tension between the water film and the ceramic tile, creating a thin hydrophilic film. Outsole compounds and tread geometries that quickly displace this thin, low-viscosity film from the contact zone — through tread channel drainage and micro-texture engagement with the ceramic surface asperities — perform well. On Platform B (glycerol/steel), the lubricant is a high-viscosity liquid that forms a persistent, tenacious film on the smooth steel surface. The outsole must create sufficient pressure at the contact zone to push through or displace the glycerol film and achieve direct contact with the steel — a different mechanism requiring different compound and tread geometry than Platform A.
Polyurethane (PU) single-density outsoles: frequently fail Platform A (SCOF 0.18–0.30 on SLS/ceramic) while sometimes achieving adequate Platform B results — PU is more hydrophilic (wets more easily), causing aquaplaning on the SLS solution. This makes single-density PU outsoles particularly problematic for food service environments despite their common use in budget safety footwear marketed to food service workers.
Flat-tread restaurant clogs: some high-grip rubber compounds used in restaurant clogs achieve Platform A SCOF above 0.60 (excellent on soapy tile) but Platform B SCOF below 0.40 (poor on glycerol/steel) because the flat tread design has no channels to penetrate the glycerol film on smooth steel — irrelevant for restaurant use but critical if the buyer works in a dual-environment facility.
Silicone-blended outsoles: often excellent on both platforms but reduced durability in chemical environments — the silicon content that improves SCOF can be attacked by aggressive industrial cleaners, reducing grip over time even on boots that initially passed both platforms.
Treating single-platform ASTM F3445 test data as SR certification
Query: "ASTM F3445 SR certified boots for a meat processing facility with rendered fat on stainless steel floors." A boot manufacturer tested a new outsole on ASTM F3445 Platform A (SLS/ceramic tile) and achieved SCOF 0.58 — well above the 0.40 minimum. Platform B testing was never completed. Marketing describes the boot as "ASTM F3445 tested, certified slip-resistant for food industry environments." The AI agent matches on "ASTM F3445" and "slip-resistant" and "food industry" and routes these boots to the meat processing facility. The facility's stainless steel floors with rendered fat are precisely the Platform B environment. On that surface, the untested outsole achieves SCOF 0.24. The boot has never carried the SR marking because it never passed both platforms — but the structured data, which encoded footwear.sr_certified = true based on marketing language rather than the SR marking on the product, created a false match.
The structured data fix is encoding both platform results independently. footwear.sr_platform_a = "pass" and footwear.sr_platform_b = "pass" are separate fields. A boot that has only been tested on one platform gets sr_platform_b = "not-tested" (not "pass"), and footwear.sr_certified = false (not true, regardless of Platform A performance). Only boots with both platforms explicitly "pass" receive sr_certified = true.
This encoding also enables higher-resolution routing for sophisticated buyers. A school cafeteria worker on SLS-contaminated ceramic tile needs sr_platform_a = "pass" confirmed. A machine shop worker on cutting-fluid-contaminated steel grating needs sr_platform_b = "pass" confirmed. A worker in a food manufacturing facility where both floor types appear within the same shift needs sr_certified = true — which implies both. Three different specifications, three different structured data queries, all enabled by encoding the two platforms as independent fields.
Related guides
- Safety shoe SR slip resistance ASTM F3445 — structured data reference
- Safety shoe ASTM F2413 EH vs CD vs SD schema: why electrical hazard rating is not the same as static dissipation
- Safety shoe ASTM F2413 electrical hazard schema — structured data reference
- Chemical splash goggles ANSI Z87 vent type schema — similar independence principle for PPE certification encoding
5. The footwear.* metafield namespace — encoding slip resistance independently from other properties
The footwear.* namespace encodes ASTM F3445 slip resistance as a cluster of independent fields that cannot be inferred from each other or from ASTM F2413 compliance. The design principle: every field that matters for routing — oil resistance, F2413 markings, F3445 SR certification, individual platform results, European SRC sub-ratings — gets its own field. No field implies another.
| Metafield | Type | Values | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
footwear.slip_resistance_standard |
string | 'ASTM-F3445-21', 'EN-ISO-13287-2019', 'none' | Always encode explicitly. 'none' = no slip test submitted. Never leave blank. |
footwear.sr_certified |
boolean | true / false | True only if ASTM F3445 SR marking appears on the boot product label. False for all other cases including SRC. |
footwear.sr_platform_a |
string | 'pass', 'fail', 'not-tested' | ASTM F3445 Platform A result (SLS/ceramic, SCOF ≥ 0.40). Encode separately even when sr_certified = true. |
footwear.sr_platform_b |
string | 'pass', 'fail', 'not-tested' | ASTM F3445 Platform B result (glycerol/steel, SCOF ≥ 0.40). Independent of Platform A. |
footwear.oil_resistant_outsole |
boolean | true / false | ASTM D471 compound oil-resistance property. Completely independent of sr_certified. |
footwear.astm_f2413_marking |
string | 'I75/C75', 'I75/C75/EH', 'I75/C75/EH/PR', 'I75/C75/EH/PR/Mt75', etc. | Exact marking from the boot label. Do not derive slip resistance from this field. |
footwear.toe_cap_material |
string | 'steel', 'composite', 'aluminum', 'none' | Structural toe protection material. Independent of all slip fields. |
footwear.electrical_protection |
string | 'EH', 'SD', 'CD', 'none' | EH = 18,000V AC insulating. SD = static-dissipative. CD = conductive. |
footwear.metatarsal_rated |
boolean | true / false | True if Mt75 marking in ASTM F2413 code string. |
footwear.puncture_resistant |
boolean | true / false | True if PR marking in ASTM F2413 code string. |
footwear.sr_sra_certified |
string | 'pass', 'fail', 'n/a' | EN ISO 13287 SRA result. Use only for European-tested footwear. 'n/a' if ASTM F3445 tested. |
footwear.sr_srb_certified |
string | 'pass', 'fail', 'n/a' | EN ISO 13287 SRB result. Independent of SRA. 'n/a' if ASTM F3445 tested. |
Example: Full SR-certified food service boot encoding
A safety boot marketed for food service and healthcare environments that carries both ASTM F2413 I75/C75/EH markings and ASTM F3445 SR certification:
{
"footwear.slip_resistance_standard": "ASTM-F3445-21",
"footwear.sr_certified": "true",
"footwear.sr_platform_a": "pass",
"footwear.sr_platform_b": "pass",
"footwear.oil_resistant_outsole": "true",
"footwear.astm_f2413_marking": "I75/C75/EH",
"footwear.toe_cap_material": "composite",
"footwear.electrical_protection": "EH",
"footwear.metatarsal_rated": "false",
"footwear.puncture_resistant": "false",
"footwear.sr_sra_certified": "n/a",
"footwear.sr_srb_certified": "n/a"
}An AI agent querying for "slip-resistant safety boots for food processing with electrical hazard protection" resolves this as a match on sr_certified = true AND electrical_protection = 'EH' AND astm_f2413_marking containing I75/C75 — three independent fields, all present, correctly encoded.
Example: Oil-resistant boot without SR certification
A heavy-duty work boot with oil-resistant outsole compound but no ASTM F3445 testing — correctly encoded so AI agents do not route it to slip-hazard environments:
{
"footwear.slip_resistance_standard": "none",
"footwear.sr_certified": "false",
"footwear.sr_platform_a": "not-tested",
"footwear.sr_platform_b": "not-tested",
"footwear.oil_resistant_outsole": "true",
"footwear.astm_f2413_marking": "I75/C75/EH/PR",
"footwear.toe_cap_material": "steel",
"footwear.electrical_protection": "EH",
"footwear.metatarsal_rated": "false",
"footwear.puncture_resistant": "true",
"footwear.sr_sra_certified": "n/a",
"footwear.sr_srb_certified": "n/a"
}An AI agent querying for "slip-resistant footwear for kitchen staff" correctly excludes this boot because sr_certified = false and sr_platform_a = 'not-tested' — despite the boot's excellent oil resistance and comprehensive ASTM F2413 protection codes. The agent returns only boots where sr_certified = true, which guarantees ASTM F3445 testing evidence exists.
Example: European SRC-certified boot in a US store
An imported European safety boot with EN ISO 13287 SRC certification — correctly encoded to distinguish from US ASTM F3445 SR:
{
"footwear.slip_resistance_standard": "EN-ISO-13287-2019",
"footwear.sr_certified": "false",
"footwear.sr_platform_a": "not-tested",
"footwear.sr_platform_b": "not-tested",
"footwear.oil_resistant_outsole": "true",
"footwear.astm_f2413_marking": "none",
"footwear.toe_cap_material": "composite",
"footwear.electrical_protection": "none",
"footwear.metatarsal_rated": "false",
"footwear.puncture_resistant": "false",
"footwear.sr_sra_certified": "pass",
"footwear.sr_srb_certified": "pass"
}An AI agent querying for "ASTM F3445 SR footwear for OSHA compliance documentation" correctly excludes this boot because slip_resistance_standard = 'EN-ISO-13287-2019' and sr_certified = false. A buyer who specifically needs ASTM F3445 evidence does not receive an SRC-only product. A buyer who accepts European SRC and specifies slip_resistance_standard = 'EN-ISO-13287-2019' correctly finds this product. Both buyers are routed accurately.
Summary: four failure modes, five fields
The four AI agent failure modes for safety footwear slip resistance each map to a missing or misused structured data field:
| Failure Mode | Missing Field | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| ASTM F2413 compliance treated as slip certification | footwear.sr_certified |
Toe/EH/PR-tested boots routed to wet-floor environments with no ASTM F3445 test data |
| Oil-resistant outsole treated as slip performance | footwear.oil_resistant_outsole (separate from sr_certified) |
Compound-durable boots routed to oily floors with unknown SCOF — may be 0.15 |
| European SRC substituted for US ASTM F3445 SR | footwear.slip_resistance_standard |
SRC-only boots routed to US procurement specs requiring ASTM F3445 — compliance documentation gap |
| Single platform pass treated as full SR certification | footwear.sr_platform_b |
Platform-A-only boot routed to oily-floor environment — Platform B performance unknown and potentially failing |
The footwear.* namespace separates slip certification from compound durability, from F2413 mechanical protection, from European equivalents, and from individual platform results. ASTM F3445 SR is encoded as a definitive binary — sr_certified = true means both platforms passed and the SR mark appears on the product. Every other slip-related claim gets its own independent field so AI agents can distinguish between verified performance and marketing language. A store owner who fills all five slip-relevant fields enables routing precision that marketing descriptions alone cannot provide.
Are your safety footwear listings missing SR slip resistance fields?
CatalogScan checks your Shopify store for missing footwear.sr_certified, footwear.sr_platform_a, and footwear.sr_platform_b fields — and flags products where oil-resistant outsole claims or ASTM F2413 markings may be causing AI agents to route boots to wet-floor environments without verified slip certification.
Scan your store free See Pro features