Vendors miss spec and say nothing until it is already in production | Manufacturing & Industrial

What it costs you today

The purchase order was clear. The material that arrives is close enough that incoming inspection passes it, but in production it behaves differently. By the time the problem surfaces you have processed a week's worth of material. The rework is yours.

How RadRoot is used here

RadRoot sends the vendor's production lead a pulse check before each major shipment. Five questions about anything flagged during their own QC, whether any raw material inputs changed, and their confidence in this lot. The follow-up drills wherever they show uncertainty.

The file you would upload

A Oracle Procurement Cloud - Purchase Orders Report export. One row is one purchase order line item. RadRoot reads the whole row, so every question can name something the person already knows is true.

PO Line ID	PO Number	Vendor Name	Material Description	Material Grade	Quantity	Unit
PO-2026-1847-003	PO-2026-1847	Hartwell Metals Supply	Aluminum bar stock	6061-T6	2400	kg
PO-2026-1851-001	PO-2026-1851	Denali Steel Works	Cold rolled steel sheet	A1008	5000	kg
PO-2026-1855-002	PO-2026-1855	Summit Alloys Inc	Stainless steel rod	304L	1800	kg
PO-2026-1859-001	PO-2026-1859	Cascade Polymers LLC	Nylon resin pellets	PA66-GF30	800	kg
PO-2026-1863-004	PO-2026-1863	Northern Forge Supply	Carbon steel plate	A36	3200	kg

First 5 of 20 rows, first 7 of 13 columns. RadRoot interviewed the production lead on each row, and 6 of 20 answered.

One interview, exactly as it ran

Six options every time, including the ones that reflect badly on whoever sent it. Each question was written after the answer above it landed.

Q1Your team is preparing 800 kg of PA66-GF30 nylon resin pellets for shipment on February 22. Did your QC process flag anything unusual during inspection of this lot?

·Nothing was flagged, all tests came back within specification
·Yes, one parameter came back borderline but still within tolerance
✓One item was flagged: the raw stock came from our secondary supplier
·Yes, we found minor contamination in one sample but cleared it after retest
·Multiple issues flagged including color variation and moisture content above target
·Yes, dimensional consistency was off and we had to segregate some material

Q2You mentioned the raw stock came from a secondary supplier. How long has it been since that supplier provided material for this specific grade?

·Less than a month, we rotated them in recently
·About three months since we last used them for PA66-GF30
·Roughly six months, they are an occasional backup
·Around nine months for this particular grade
✓More than a year, around eighteen months for this grade
·This is the first time we have ever sourced this grade from them

Q3When the secondary supplier's material arrived, did you run a batch comparison test against your normal supplier's product?

·Yes, we ran a full side-by-side comparison including melt flow and impact tests
·Yes, we did a limited comparison on key parameters like tensile and moisture
·We ran a partial comparison but only on viscosity and color
✓No, we ran standard incoming inspection but not a full batch comparison
·No, we relied entirely on the supplier's certification without internal testing
·No testing at all, we assumed equivalence based on grade designation

Q4Given that you have not run a batch comparison, how confident are you that this lot will perform the same way in the customer's molding process?

·Very confident, both suppliers are certified and the grade is identical
·Fairly confident, minor variations are common and usually do not matter
✓Moderately confident, the material is within spec but behavior might differ slightly
·Somewhat uncertain, molding parameters might need adjustment
·Not very confident, there could be noticeable differences in fill or strength
·We honestly cannot predict how it will behave without trial runs

Q5Before today, had you informed Apex Precision that this shipment would contain material from the secondary supplier?

·Yes, we informed them as soon as we knew we would use the secondary supplier
·Yes, we mentioned it during order confirmation last week
·We informed them a few days ago when the material arrived
·We mentioned it yesterday but did not provide details
✓No, this is the first time we are disclosing the substitution
·No, and we were not planning to disclose it unless they asked

The verdict it produced

Written for whoever ran the campaign. The respondent never sees it.

The vendor switched to a secondary supplier for the PA66-GF30 resin due to a lead time issue. That supplier has not provided this grade in eighteen months. Standard QC was performed but no batch comparison test was run. The vendor disclosed the substitution for the first time in this interview, three days before shipment. They are moderately confident the material will perform but acknowledge it might behave differently in molding. You have no advance notice and no independent data on how this lot compares to your normal feed stock.

supplier substitution negative high confidence

The raw stock for this lot came from a secondary supplier who has not provided this grade in eighteen months.

lot risk mixed medium confidence

The respondent expects the material to be within spec but acknowledges it might behave slightly differently in production.

QC confidence negative high confidence

Standard incoming inspection was performed but no batch comparison test was run against the primary supplier's material.

disclosure timing negative high confidence

The supplier did not disclose the substitution until this interview, three days before the scheduled shipment.

material traceability mixed medium confidence

The substitution was driven by a lead time issue and the secondary supplier is approved for this material.

See this on your own data

Fifteen minutes, screen to screen. We run your real question through RadRoot while you watch, and you leave with the follow-up it wrote and a price.

Book 15 minutes Answer one yourself