Ok - Bank ordered 40 million spoilage resulted in printing of 53 million to get actual number of 40 million. The spoilage rate is higher because there are new features.
Lets say for a minute that it is true.
Firstly the new features may be new for Canadian notes but are hardly new for bank note printing in general and for CBN in particular.
Two side intaglio-This has been done for NZ notes that were printed by CBN. If CBN had so much spoilage for BoC print run on this account then there is lot to be desired.
Entirely New Transparent Window-Firstly the form factor of the transparent window is the same. Secondly CBN already had experience running different window on the NZ notes. The main change was in the metallic stripe but that is a separate process. If the metallic stripe was defective it would not have been applied to the substrate. One would not expect them to spoil the whole sheet finding the metallic stripe to be defective.
Coloured feature on the front-This is also present I believe on the NZ notes. In fact on the NZ notes printed by CBN it is much more complex than the BoC $10 commemorative note.
I cannot imagine such a high spoilage rate simply because of such new features from a reputable security printer like CBN especially after they successfully printed the NZ notes. Furthermore in any production system one does not wait until completing such a high quantity run before the spoilage rate is determined. Quality control procedures would dictate that things are detected early and fixed through trials before full production.
Even if this were to be true - it has to be recognized that in any production things are planned based on certain parameters.
I cannot imagine CBN and BoC ordering 30% more substrate material, metallic stripes, and ink material in anticipation of such a high spoilage rate. The polymer substrate is the most expensive element of the bank note. So if spoilage were in fact that high in all likelihood the outcome would have been as follows:
Ordered 40 million notes (say with 5% anticipate spoilage). Now if the actual spoilage was higher than 5% then they would have ended up getting lesser than 40 million notes. In this case with 30% spoilage it would be something like 30 million notes. At the very least if they wanted to meet the 40 million target there would some time required to order these extra materials. It is highly unlikely that the BoC really believed that the demand would be so high that there would have been a crunch with 30 million notes instead of the planned 40 million
This does not even factor in the point in the production when the spoilage is determined. Most observers are commenting that the spoilage is high because the serial numbers are being skipped.
The serial numbers are the last thing to get put on the notes. One cannot imagine that the spoilage is because of the problem in printing serial numbers. If the spoilage is indeed in the process that involve new technology then it is most likely that it is affecting the sheets and that those sheets are being removed before the printing of the numbers. In such a case there would be no skipping of numbers.
Most certainly the Single Note Inspection Process that is being used could be picking up defects that were not big enough to be caught on the whole sheet. Since this process happens after the printing of the serial numbers it is possible that many notes were deemed not fit for circulation. But again that would mean that lesser than 40 million would be produced in all likelihood.
No replacement 
?Finally I find the thoughts about replacement very interesting. While we do not have the traditional * and X replacements the catalog is full of inserts even after the * and X ceased to be in existence.
Aren't inserts in principle supposed to be filling the role of the replacement. All be it instead of * and X they are using notes from regular print runs to do so. If this is the case would not the BoC be planning to print more regular notes with some to be used as inserts?
I thought the only difference between inserts and replacements was the difficulty in physically identifying the notes that are inserted in place of spoiled notes. The principle reason for them was the same. Or am I missing something?
Why would we think there are no inserts in the $10 commemorative notes? Just because brick hunters have not been successful in finding them does not mean they do not exist. In fact they must exist otherwise it negates the whole concept of the post * and X inserts IMHO.
