Brand sheet generator

A brand document with the approved-combinations matrix nobody else generates.

What approved-combinations matrix is

A grid showing every brand colour set over every other, with the measured contrast and a pass or fail for each cell. It is the section that turns a palette into guidance, because five hex codes tell a developer nothing about which of them may carry text on which.

What this tool does that others do not

  • The section real guidelines have and generators skip

    Open the public brand guidelines for UCLA, GOV.UK, IBM’s Carbon system or Scope and the same grid is in all of them, with the failures explicitly marked — UCLA labels them DNP, does not pass. Every one of those grids was made by hand, and no brand-kit generator produces one.

  • Failing pairs carry a substitute

    Marking a pairing as failing is half a guideline. The other half is what to do about it, and "choose a different colour" is not available when the colour is the brand. Each failing row carries a substitute found by holding the hue and searching the lightness axis for the nearest passing value.

  • Type and tokens, not filler

    Sixteen curated heading-and-body pairings, each with a stated mood and rationale, and the palette exported as DTCG-format colour tokens. The fields it cannot fill are left as structured empty fields rather than filled with generated prose.

How to use it

  1. Enter the palette as it was given to you

    Including the colours you suspect will fail. A matrix with the awkward colours left out is not a guideline, it is a wish.

  2. Read the failing cells first

    They are where the document earns its keep. The substitute column is what the developer will actually use.

  3. Choose one type pairing and stop

    Sixteen are offered so you can choose; listing several in the final document guarantees none of them is followed.

  4. Export the sheet and the tokens together

    The document is for the humans and the colour token file is for the build, and they should leave the room agreeing with each other. The type pairing is in the document, not the token file.

Worked example

Real input, real figures.

A brand colour that cannot carry text on the brand background

You give it

Two brand colours whose pairing measures below 4.5:1.

You get

The cell is marked as failing with its real ratio, and the substitute column gives the nearest value on the same hue that clears the threshold. The pairing is still recognisably the brand, because hue is what makes a colour recognisable and lightness is what drives the measurement.

Against a typical brand kit generator

AspectThis toolA typical brand kit
Colour guidanceEvery pair measured, failures markedA row of hex values
Failing pairsA substitute at the same hueNot identified
Typography16 pairings with a stated rationaleA font name
LogoYou bring itGenerated
Brand voice copyLeft as empty structured fieldsGenerated filler
Token exportDTCG JSONA PDF

Guide

What it will not do

  • No logo generation, and no brand voice copy. The first needs an image model; the second would be filler presented as strategy, and a structured empty field is more useful than either.
  • A passing matrix is not an accessible brand. Contrast is one success criterion; WCAG 1.4.1 separately requires that colour is never the only way information is conveyed, and this audits a palette rather than a product.

The section real brand guidelines have and generators skip

Open the public brand guidelines for UCLA, GOV.UK, IBM's Carbon system or Scope and you will find the same thing: a grid of approved colour combinations with the failures explicitly marked. UCLA labels themDNP — does not pass.

It is there because a palette is not guidance. Five hex codes tell a developer nothing about which of them may carry body text on which background, and the answer is rarely obvious — a brand colour that reads beautifully as a button fill often fails badly as 16px text.

Every one of those grids was made by hand. No brand-kit generator produces one, which means the documents they output are pleasant to look at and silent on the only colour question a developer will actually ask.

What "use instead" is doing

Marking a pairing as failing is only half a guideline. The other half is what to do about it, and the usual answer — choose a different colour — is not available when the colour is the brand.

So every failing row carries a substitute found by holding the hue and searching the lightness axis for the nearest value that clears 4.5:1. The result still reads as the brand colour, because hue is what makes a colour recognisable and lightness is what drives the measurement. That separation is the entire reason this is solvable.

What this deliberately does not do

It does not generate a logo, and it does not write your brand voice, mission or values. Those need either an image model or an opinion about your business, and a generated paragraph of brand voice is worse than an empty field with a good prompt beside it.

You bring the logo and the words. The tool does the colour and typography work, runs the audit, and lays it out.

Questions people ask

Straight answers. Each one links directly: copy the address after opening it.

What is an approved-combinations matrix?

A grid showing every brand colour over every other, with the measured contrast and a pass or fail. Real brand guidelines from UCLA, GOV.UK, IBM Carbon and Scope all contain one — UCLA marks the failures "DNP", does not pass. It exists because a palette on its own does not tell anyone which pairings are safe to put text in.

Why does no other brand kit generator include this?

Because generating a palette and auditing one are different jobs, and most brand-kit tools are logo tools with a palette attached. The result is a document that hands your client colours they cannot legally put text on, with nothing saying so.

Do you generate the logo or write the brand voice?

No. We cannot generate a logo without an image model, and we will not fake brand voice copy. You bring the logo and the words; we do the colour and typography work, the audit, and the layout. Structured empty fields are more useful than AI filler.

Is a passing matrix the same as an accessible brand?

No. Contrast is one success criterion out of many, and WCAG 1.4.1 separately requires that colour is never the only way information is conveyed. The matrix tells you your palette will not fail on contrast. It does not audit your product.