Fine Robusta Standards Explained: 350g, Defects, and Why Protocol Dates Matter

Coffee standards are often damaged by shorthand.

A technical document says one thing. A training slide simplifies it. A blog copies the slide. An AI summary removes the date. Eventually a statement such as “Fine Robusta allows 4–7 defects in a 300 g sample” begins circulating as though it were an official rule.

For the 2019 Coffee Quality Institute / Uganda Coffee Development Authority Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols, that shorthand is wrong.

The historical protocol is much more specific:

Fine Robusta green coffee was evaluated on a 350 ± 0.2 g sample. To meet the Fine Robusta physical grade, the sample had to contain zero Category 1 full defects and no more than five Category 2 full defects.

The same 2019 document also specified a 100 ± 0.2 g roasted sample for quaker count, with up to three quakers allowed for Fine Robusta; moisture content of 10–12% wet basis; freedom from foreign non-coffee odors; and a final cupping score of 80.00 or above within that historical Q Robusta system.

Those are the numbers OCC will use when describing the 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta protocol.

But the date belongs in the sentence.

Since 2025, Q Grader program administration has moved from CQI to the Specialty Coffee Association, and SCA’s current Coffee Value Assessment framework organizes evaluation differently. SCA also lists a new green-coffee grading standard, SCA-110, as still under development as of August 2026.

So the technically correct answer has two parts:

1. What did the historical CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta protocol require?
2. Which current standard or evaluation system is being used now?

Confusing those two questions is how accurate old numbers become inaccurate current claims.

The 2019 Fine Robusta physical standard in one table

The 2019 CQI publication, developed in collaboration with the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, compiled the following Fine Robusta green and roasted coffee requirements.

This is the reference OCC means whenever an article says “under the 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols.”

It should not be rewritten as 300 g.

It should not be rewritten as “four to seven defects.”

And it should not be stripped of the words full defects.

Why “five defects” does not necessarily mean five imperfect beans

The phrase “maximum five defects” is another source of confusion.

The 2019 protocol says grading is based on equivalent full defects, not simply the number of imperfect beans sitting on the grading mat.

Imperfections are divided into two groups:

• Primary / Category 1 defects
• Secondary / Category 2 defects

The grader records imperfect beans and converts them according to the protocol’s equivalent-defect ratios. Several imperfect beans of a particular secondary type may be required to equal one full defect, depending on the defect category.

This distinction is essential.

If a report says a coffee had “five defective beans,” that is not automatically the same thing as five full equivalent defects.

Likewise, a coffee containing a single Category 1 full defect would fail the 2019 Fine Robusta physical threshold even if the total visible number of imperfect beans looked small.

The meaningful unit is the full equivalent defect calculated under the named defect table.

Category 1 and Category 2 are not interchangeable

The historical Fine Robusta protocol was intentionally asymmetric.

Fine Robusta allowed:

• zero Category 1 full defects, and
• up to five Category 2 full defects.

That is not the same as “five total defects of any kind.”

The 2019 Robusta Green Grading Form lists Category 1 examples including full black, full sour, dried cherry/pod, fungus damaged, foreign matter and severe insect damage. Category 2 includes partial black, partial sour, parchment, floater, immature/unripe, withered, chalky beans, shells, broken/chipped/cut beans, hull/husk and slight insect damage.

The classification matters because primary defects are treated as more severe.

A simplified article that collapses everything into a single defect number removes the logic of the grading system.

For technical writing, “0 primary + ≤5 secondary full defects” is therefore materially better than “≤5 defects.”

Why 350 g matters

Sample mass is not a cosmetic detail.

Defect limits only have meaning relative to the amount of coffee examined.

Five full defects in 350 g and five full defects in 300 g represent different defect densities. If the sample size changes while the threshold stays the same, the effective grading tolerance changes.

This is why copying an Arabica-oriented 300 g reference into a Robusta article can quietly distort the result even if every other sentence sounds professional.

The 2019 Fine Robusta protocol says the green grading sample is 350 ± 0.2 g.

That does not mean the entire amount of coffee submitted to an evaluation programme was only 350 g. It means 350 g was the physical green sample used for the grading procedure described in that protocol.

Sample submission, laboratory allocation and grading aliquots are separate concepts and should not be merged.

Where the “300 g” error probably comes from

Coffee professionals encounter several grading systems, contract specifications and national standards. Sample sizes are not universal across every purpose.

Arabica green grading has historically often been discussed with a 300 g sample in SCA-oriented materials and commercial practice. Other origin or exchange standards can use their own sample masses, defect tables and grade names.

When writers move between Arabica and Canephora without preserving the protocol name, it becomes easy to borrow the wrong denominator.

This is why OCC will no longer publish a sentence such as:

“Specialty coffee allows X defects per Y grams.”

That formulation is too broad.

A defensible technical sentence looks more like:

“Under the 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols, Fine Robusta green grading used a 350 g sample with zero Category 1 full defects and no more than five Category 2 full defects.”

The species context, institution, year and sample size travel together.

Physical grade and cup score were separate gates

The 2019 document did not define Fine Robusta using cup score alone.

It combined physical preparation and sensory evaluation.

For Fine Robusta, the document states a final cupping score of 80.00 or above. But a coffee that reached 80 points did not thereby erase a disqualifying physical defect.

Likewise, a visually clean green sample did not automatically become Fine Robusta if the sensory evaluation failed to reach the required quality level under that system.

This distinction matters for Cambodia’s Sample 939618.

CQI’s public database records the Cambodian KOFI lot from the 2023/2024 harvest at 80.50 under the historical Q Robusta system. That sample is valuable evidence of an evaluated lot. But the number should always be interpreted within the protocol and programme that produced it—not as a timeless scoring law for every future Cambodian coffee.

The score and the physical grading framework belong to a dated system.

Quakers used a different sample

The 2019 protocol also demonstrates why one article can contain both a 350 g and a 100 g number without contradiction.

The physical green sample was 350 ± 0.2 g.

The roasted coffee sample used for quaker count was 100 ± 0.2 g.

For Fine Robusta, up to three quakers were allowed in that 100 g roasted sample.

These are different tests on different material states.

A writer who remembers “100 g” but forgets that it refers to roasted coffee can create another false standard just as easily as someone importing the 300 g Arabica denominator.

Whenever OCC publishes a sample weight, we will state whether it refers to green coffee, roasted coffee, a sensory preparation or a submission quantity.

Moisture was also explicitly defined in the 2019 compilation

The 2019 compilation specifies 10–12% moisture content on a wet basis for the green coffee sample.

This is useful historical information, but it needs the same date discipline as the defect numbers.

Moisture specifications can also be contractual. Storage environments, packaging, water activity, buyer requirements and contemporary trading standards may add other acceptance criteria.

OCC therefore will not turn the historical 10–12% line into a universal statement that “all Fine Robusta today must be exactly 10–12%.”

The accurate formulation is:

The 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta protocol specified 10–12% moisture content, wet basis.

If a current buyer uses a different commercial specification, that should be documented separately.

Bean size was not the Fine Robusta quality definition

The 2019 document makes another useful distinction: final bean size was to be determined by contractual terms and was not itself a quality specification for Fine Robusta.

The document required bean size not to deviate more than 5% from the agreed contract specification when measured by traditional round-holed screens.

This matters because “large bean = better coffee” is a common oversimplification.

Screen size can be commercially important for roast consistency, sorting, buyer programmes and contract compliance. But the historical Fine Robusta framework did not define Fine status merely by demanding a particular large screen size.

A technical article should therefore separate:

• quality classification, and
• contractual physical specification.

They can overlap, but they are not identical.

Why the protocol date matters after October 2025

The institutional landscape changed materially in 2025.

The Specialty Coffee Association announced that management of the Q Grader Program would transition from CQI to SCA. On 1 October 2025, SCA launched the updated Q Grader programme grounded in the Coffee Value Assessment.

The current Q Grader structure evaluates coffee through four perspectives:

• physical;
• descriptive;
• affective; and
• extrinsic.

SCA says the CVA Physical Assessment evaluates attributes including color, defects, moisture and size and is currently based on the 2004 SCA green-coffee grading system.

At the same time, SCA’s standards page lists SCA-110 Green Coffee: Grading, Specifications, and Test Methods (for the Purpose of Trading) under Standards in Development as of August 2026.

That combination tells us something important.

The coffee industry is in a transition period for green-coffee physical assessment. It is therefore not responsible to take the 2019 CQI/UCDA Robusta defect table and label it “the current SCA Fine Robusta standard.”

It is a historical Canephora-specific reference from the CQI/UCDA system.

Current SCA evaluation and future green-coffee standards need to be named separately.

Current CVA sensory standards are not simply a renamed Q Robusta form

SCA officially adopted CVA standards for sample preparation and tasting mechanics, descriptive assessment and affective assessment in 2024. These replaced the old 2004 SCA cupping form and protocol for their stated scope.

The framework deliberately separates description from quality impression.

That is different from simply taking the old Q Robusta form and changing the logo.

SCA’s published SCA-103 Descriptive Assessment standard is designed for Arabica green coffee in its formal scope, while noting that it can be adapted to other Coffea species but that such applications are outside the document’s scope.

That detail is another reason not to write as if there were one universal 2026 “Fine Robusta scoring sheet” that cleanly replaces every historical procedure.

For Canephora researchers, buyers and origin projects, the responsible approach is to record exactly which sensory and physical protocol was used.

Historical evidence does not become invalid when a programme changes

A standards transition does not erase old results.

CQI Sample 939618 does not stop being useful because Q Grader administration later moved to SCA.

The correct interpretation is chronological:

Then: Sample 939618 was evaluated under the CQI Q Robusta system in force at the time.

Now: SCA manages the updated Q Grader programme using the CVA framework, while new green-coffee grading standards continue to develop.

This is how scientific and technical archives should work.

Historical results remain evidence of what was measured under a named method. They simply should not be misrepresented as having been generated under a later method.

The same principle applies to every old coffee score OCC cites.

Why old Fine Robusta documents can disagree with one another

Fine Robusta standards have circulated in multiple editions and training documents over time.

That alone is enough reason to record a version or publication year rather than saying “CQI says…” without qualification.

Technical standards evolve. Definitions are refined. Training programmes change. Institutions update administration. Contract markets adopt different tolerances.

The correct question is never merely:

“What is the Fine Robusta standard?”

It is:

“Which Fine Robusta standard, published by whom, in which year, for which purpose?”

That question sounds more cumbersome. It is also what prevents technically literate readers from finding contradictions inside an article.

OCC’s standard for writing about standards

From this article forward, OCC will apply six rules whenever we publish a coffee technical threshold.

1. Name the issuing body

CQI/UCDA, SCA, an exchange, a national authority, a buyer specification or another source.

2. Name the year or version

A number without a date can become misleading as soon as the underlying standard changes.

3. Name the species and scope

Arabica, Canephora/Robusta, green grading, cupping, trading, competition or contract acceptance are not interchangeable.

4. Name the sample state and mass

Green 350 g and roasted 100 g are different tests. Fresh cherry, parchment and green coffee are different products.

5. Use the protocol’s actual unit

“Full equivalent defect” should not be rewritten as “bad beans.” Category 1 and Category 2 should not be collapsed if the threshold treats them differently.

6. Separate historical evidence from current practice

An old Q certificate can remain valid historical evidence even when the programme that produced it has changed.

These rules are not cosmetic editorial preferences. They are part of OCC’s research QA.

The corrected Fine Robusta sentence OCC will use

When discussing the historical classification behind Cambodia’s early Fine Robusta references, OCC’s standard sentence is now:

Under the 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols, Fine Robusta green coffee was graded using a 350 ± 0.2 g sample and required zero Category 1 full defects and no more than five Category 2 full defects; the protocol also required a final cupping score of at least 80.00.

If additional criteria matter to the article, we will specify them separately: 100 g roasted quaker sample, maximum three quakers, 10–12% moisture wet basis and no foreign odor.

We will not shorten this to “300 g, 4–7 defects.”

We will not call it a current SCA rule.

And we will not use the old score or defect criteria without identifying the historical system.

One small correction creates a much stronger origin record

Correcting 300 g to 350 g may look minor.

It is not.

Emerging origins are especially vulnerable to technical errors because the public information base is still small. One incorrect number can be copied across dozens of articles, AI answers and buyer decks until it becomes harder to remove than it was to create.

Cambodia is now building a Fine Robusta evidence record. That makes standards hygiene part of origin building.

A credible origin does not need to pretend its quality system has never changed.

It needs to show which system was used, when it was used, and what the result actually meant.

For the historical 2019 CQI/UCDA Fine Robusta framework, the answer is clear:

350 g. Zero Category 1 full defects. No more than five Category 2 full defects. And always include the date.

Sources and further reading

• Coffee Quality Institute. _Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols_ (2019), developed in collaboration with Uganda Coffee Development Authority. PDF mirror of the 2019 CQI publication: https://www.scith.coffee/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Fine-Robusta-Standards-Protocols.pdf
• Coffee Quality Institute. Public announcement of the 2019 comprehensive Fine Robusta Standards digital edition: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/coffee-quality-institute\_cqis-fine-robusta-standards-and-protocols-activity-6546458192027676673-13oQ
• Specialty Coffee Association. Coffee Value Assessment: https://sca.coffee/value-assessment
• Specialty Coffee Association. Standards: https://sca.coffee/research/coffee-standards
• Specialty Coffee Association. “Q Grader Courses Now Available Across Various Regions and Languages.” 1 October 2025: https://sca.coffee/sca-news/2025/10/1/q-grader-courses-now-available-across-various-regions-and-languages-zakzc
• Specialty Coffee Association. Q Grader programme: https://sca.coffee/education/q-grader
• Coffee Quality Institute. Q Certified Robusta Sample 939618, Cambodia, KOFI, harvest 2023/2024, score 80.50: https://database.coffeeinstitute.org/api/coffee/939618/pdf

Related OCC reading:

• What Exactly Makes a Robusta Coffee “Fine Robusta”?
• From One 80.5-Point Lot to an Origin: What Cambodia Must Prove Next
• Beyond Bitter: Fine Robusta Is Entering a New Specialty Era — Where Does Cambodia Fit?
• Fine Robusta Cambodia: Buyer’s Guide to Quality, Mondulkiri and Sourcing