REVIEW METHOD / SAMPLE REPORT

From Source Material to a Purchasing Decision

An illustrative procurement risk review: one proposed machine-tool order, three findings and a reason for every next action.

ENTIRELY FICTIONAL / ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE — no real supplier, client, registry record or completed engagement is represented.

Scenario & Review Scope

Scenario: a buyer is considering a machine-tool order from Fictional Supplier A. The review compares simulated registration details, quotation Q-02, specification S-01 and a payment instruction. No site visit, product test or real registry search has been performed.

Decision Summary

The simulated entity details align, the technical acceptance basis is incomplete and the proposed payment recipient differs from the contracting supplier. These are separate findings: a registration match does not neutralize a payment discrepancy.

Illustrative recommendation: pause payment. Establish the recipient’s relationship and authority, agree a dated specification and acceptance method, then reassess the unresolved items before commitment.

GREEN

Contracting identity — consistent within the sample

Input: The entity name and reference in quotation Q-02 match those in simulated registry extract R-01.
Source type: Fictional public-registry extract and supplier-issued quotation; both created solely for this example.
Review criterion: The contracting entity and registration reference should agree across the materials reviewed.
Finding: No identity mismatch appears between these two sample documents.
Rationale: The comparison supports consistency of the named entity only. It provides no evidence of production capacity, solvency or authority of the person signing.
Decision implication: Continue the review under the same entity reference; separately confirm signatory authority and operational claims.

AMBER

Technical acceptance — unresolved

Input: Q-02 refers to ‘standard accuracy’. S-01 lists the model but contains no agreed tolerance, test method or approval date.
Source type: Fictional supplier quotation and draft technical specification; no independent test evidence.
Review criterion: The order should identify an agreed specification version and a measurable acceptance method.
Finding: The sample file does not establish how conformity will be accepted.
Rationale: A model reference alone cannot resolve a later disagreement over accuracy or performance. Missing criteria are an information gap, not proof of poor product quality.
Decision implication: Obtain a dated, mutually agreed specification and acceptance protocol before order confirmation; coordinate qualified testing if required.

RED

Payment recipient — inconsistent with the supplier

Input: Payment instruction P-01 names Fictional Recipient B, while Q-02 names Fictional Supplier A. No relationship or collection authority is documented.
Source type: Fictional payment instruction and quotation; no bank verification or authenticated authorization is available.
Review criterion: The payee should match the contracting entity, or the relationship and collection authority must be evidenced and accepted by the buyer.
Finding: The sample file does not explain or support the different recipient.
Rationale: The discrepancy prevents a defensible payment instruction. It is a material unresolved risk, not a finding of fraud.
Decision implication: Pause payment. Obtain an explanation and authenticated authority through a previously verified contact route; seek bank or legal confirmation where needed.

Request a Procurement Risk Review