At Canton Fair, a supplier shows you a metal bracket with a finish your engineer likes. During the factory visit, you ask to see the coating process. The manager points to an idle line and says it will be ready for your order. Nobody can show you a recent run using the proposed process. Back at the hotel, the salesperson sends a deposit request. You need a decision about that missing capability before you authorise production.
This purchase, product and record identifiers are fictional illustrations, not customer transactions. This article is general information, not engineering, legal, tax or investment advice. Your qualified specialists must determine technical suitability and any product requirements. A visit or audit does not guarantee supplier performance.
Write down the gap without inventing the cause
Record what you observed: the supplier did not demonstrate the proposed coating process at the visited site. Record the manager's explanation separately. “Line awaiting repair” is a supplier statement until your reviewer verifies it. “Factory cannot make brackets” would go beyond what you saw.
Company identity remains a separate question. Use the registration-records guide to establish which business you are considering. Finding a registered company does not resolve the coating concern.
QIMA's manufacturing-audit description distinguishes evaluating a supplier's facilities, capabilities and quality systems from inspecting goods against specifications. That distinction matters here: you have an unresolved production-capability question before a batch exists.
Define evidence that would change your decision
Your engineer should explain why the missing process matters for this bracket and what evidence would establish readiness. Agree that scope with the factory before commissioning a repeat visit. Buying a general tour again could leave you with the same unanswered question.
For this fictional order, the buyer wants a witnessed trial using the intended material and coating process, with identifiable parts and results against the engineer's acceptance criteria. The factory should identify the actual production site, responsible operator and intended equipment. Supporting records need enough context to connect them to that run. An undated video of another product would not meet this brief.
The coating may come from a subcontractor. If so, have the supplier disclose the proposed site and process rather than presenting an in-house line as the answer. Your technical reviewer must assess that arrangement, and purchasing must settle any contractual restrictions on subcontracting. A change of site requires a new review of the relevant evidence.
Give the supplier a closure card
QIMA's supplier-audit guide describes reporting findings and discussing a corrective action plan at the closing meeting. The card below is an editorial example for your buying decision, not a mandatory audit format.
| Field | Fictional finding F-COAT-01 |
|---|---|
| Gap | Proposed coating process not demonstrated at the visited site |
| Required correction | Supplier establishes the agreed process at the identified production site, or proposes an alternative for review |
| Supplier owner and deadline | Named production manager; agreed date before the buyer's order decision |
| Evidence | Identified trial parts, process records and agreed technical test results |
| Closure check | Buyer's independent technical reviewer examines the records and witnesses or commissions the agreed verification |
| Permitted order | Only the quantity and scope the buyer approves after reviewing the result |
| Open restriction | No approval for the full production run while capability remains unverified |
Retain the observation, supplier response and closure evidence together. The supplier can complete an action; your authorised reviewer decides whether that action answers the finding. A manager's “fixed” message should not substitute for that review.
The independent-inspector guide helps you evaluate a contractor. For this assignment, specify process-capability verification rather than booking only a finished-goods inspection.
Choose full approval, a bounded pilot or no order
Suppose the repeat visit confirms a working line, but the trial uses hand-applied coating while the quoted production order assumes an automated process. Your reviewer should record that limitation. The supplier has demonstrated something narrower than the planned production method.
You might agree a paid technical pilot to investigate the remaining question. Define its product, process, cost and acceptance gate, and state that it authorises no repeat volume. A pilot is suitable only if your specialists consider its unresolved risks acceptable. It should not become a way to waive a critical safety or compliance requirement.
Approve the first production order only within the capability the reviewer has verified and the commercial terms you accept. Decline the order if the supplier refuses relevant access or cannot provide sufficient evidence. Existing commitments need separate attention: an internal purchasing hold does not amend a contract or create a refund right.
Release funds for the approved scope
Give finance the closure decision alongside the current order. Include who approved it, the evidence reviewed, residual limitations and the quantity authorised. The post-fair deposit guide covers the other purchase and payment checks; keep them distinct from closing this capability finding.
Use pay an invoice to ask A2vanta about the proposed payment before funding. Payment handling does not verify the factory's process or close an audit finding. Fund the scope your team has approved, not the larger run the salesperson hopes you will approve later.