Resource library · procurement review

Record the gap before anyone decides on a substitute.

A worked, synthetic example of how a supplier-substitution exception could be documented, checked against criteria agreed by the responsible team, and escalated with uncertainty intact during a 14-day parallel evaluation.

14-day parallel evaluationThe existing purchasing process remains in control
01

Document the exception

Keep the proposed change and the evidence visible.

A useful record distinguishes what was proposed from what has actually been established.

Item
SYNTH-ITEM-017

Original purchased item · controlled specification not supplied

Proposed substitute
SYNTH-SUB-024

Proposed alternate · specification and fit are unverified

Exception reason
Fictional delivery-window conflict

In this invented scenario, a note says the original source’s stated delivery window no longer matches a fictional need date.

Available evidence in this example
Sample exception note; unverified availability statement

Both are fictional summaries. No source document, controlled specification, quote, or test result is included.

Missing information
Specification, qualification, requirements, and comparable terms

The reviewer would request the controlled item revision, approved-source evidence, applicable quality or customer constraints, and comparable delivery and commercial terms.

02

Assess against agreed criteria

Missing evidence stays unresolved.

For this synthetic walkthrough, assume the team agreed these criteria before the evaluation. A real team sets its own criteria and thresholds; these sample prompts do not decide that the substitute fits.

  1. Specification and revision

    No controlled specification or revision is included.

    Unresolved

  2. Approved-source status

    No supplier qualification record is included.

    Not verified

  3. Quality, regulatory, or customer constraints

    The applicable requirements have not been supplied.

    Unknown

  4. Delivery and commercial terms

    No comparable quote or confirmed delivery date is included.

    Not established
03

Escalate for human review

Route the assessment and open questions to the owner.

In a real evaluation, the organization identifies the authorized procurement or supplier-quality approval owner. That person—not this example—reviews the evidence and decides what, if anything, may proceed.

Illustrative checkpoint · Day 6 of 14Sample timing only
Current process continues

Existing purchasing records and controls remain authoritative.

Parallel review assembles context

The sample assessment and missing questions are collected for review.

Human owner reviews

The organization’s approval owner handles any consequential decision.

Sample escalation packet

To: responsible approval owner · role placeholder

Awaiting human review

Subject: Review requested · SYNTH-CASE-01

The proposed substitute has not been assessed as a fit. The example record lacks the controlled specification, source qualification, applicable requirements, and comparable terms. Please identify the evidence and criteria the owner requires, and confirm whether further evaluation is in scope.

Questions for the human owner

  • Which controlled specification and revision should the review use?
  • What evidence would the responsible owner require to assess the proposed source for this use?
  • Which quality, regulatory, customer, or contract constraints apply?
  • Are comparable delivery and commercial terms available, and who owns that comparison?