Evaluate supplier evidence without transferring accountability
Assess vendor documentation for relevance, quality and configuration applicability.
2.1 minutes · English captions · Illustrations and worked example
This lesson’s core explanations and worked-example reasoning are narrated. The table restates the example for reference; the practice activity and model answer are reading exercises.
English captions available.
Narration and visual explanations
Open View Technical Explanation to see each diagram, its text description and the matching narration. Standard abbreviations and numerals are used visually.
Evidence must fit the question
View Technical Explanation · Diagram 1
Lesson explanation
A supplier brochure, design calculation and executed test record are different evidence types. Start with the question you need to answer. A generic brochure may describe a product family without identifying the purchased configuration. A calculation may rely on conditions that do not apply to our process. An executed record needs traceable results and a clear method. More pages do not necessarily provide more relevant evidence.
Review supplier protocols
View Technical Explanation · Diagram 2
Lesson explanation
Where third-party validation protocols are used, site personnel should check their suitability and alignment with internal procedures before approval. In our example, the vendor protocol omits the required sensor-failure challenge. Record the gap and arrange a justified supplement rather than accepting a complete stamp. DQ can identify this future verification need while supplier documentation is still being developed. Site responsibility does not disappear because a specialist supplier prepared the template.
FAT is not DQ approval
View Technical Explanation · Diagram 3
Lesson explanation
Factory acceptance testing can provide useful evidence, but it is not a replacement label for DQ. Any planned reuse of appropriate factory tests needs a documented justification that considers the applicable configuration and whether transport or installation can affect the function. Some checks may still be needed on site. For example, a factory record cannot demonstrate that the site’s final utility connection is correct. Keep the evidence claim within what was actually examined.
A firmware substitution
View Technical Explanation · Diagram 4
Lesson explanation
The factory report refers to controller version one, while the supplied design proposes version two. Do not automatically accept everything or discard everything. Identify what changed, assess effects on relevant functions and decide which evidence remains applicable. Document the rationale and additional work. This focused review is more defensible than deciding from the version number alone. The same reasoning applies to substituted instruments, valves and software configurations.
Worked example
| Supplier item | What it can support | What remains to assess |
|---|---|---|
| Brochure | General capability information | Purchased configuration and justified process fit |
| Calculation | Defined design argument | Assumptions, inputs and method applicability |
| Factory record | Observed factory test result | Configuration, method and transport/installation impact |
Apply it · Activity 8
Review a supplier report that uses a different controller version and omits a fault challenge. Write two distinct findings.
Open workbook activityCompare with model reasoning
One finding addresses configuration applicability; the other addresses protocol coverage. Request change information, assess affected functions and specify the missing site-reviewed challenge or justified evidence.