Capability template for quality management
Supplier quality response check
A quality or purchasing person who has raised a defect with a supplier gets the supplier's reply set against the finding: what is answered, what is not, the evidence still to ask for, the actions proposed and what has yet to be verified. The person decides whether the answer is accepted.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
A supplier's reply to a quality finding is easy to read as an answer and hard to read as a comparison. This capability template does the comparison. It takes the approved finding, lays each thing the finding asked for beside what the reply actually says, and marks each one as addressed in full, addressed in part, not addressed or disputed.
It then separates what the supplier has done from what the supplier has promised. A promised action is not a completed one, and a completed one is not a verified one, so each action is labelled with where it stands. The reply is also read against your own records: a lot the reply never mentions, a figure that differs from yours, a cause that explains only part of the failures.
The result ends with the evidence still worth asking for, what must be seen before the finding can close, and the choices open to the owner. It accepts nothing, closes nothing and writes nothing to the supplier. For the notice that raises a problem, use supplier issue notice; for the supplier's record over time, use supplier performance scorecard.
Who starts the work, and when
The supplier-quality owner, or the quality or purchasing person who raised the finding, starts it when the supplier's reply arrives, and again if a second reply follows. It needs the finding to be approved already, so that there is a fixed statement of what was found and what was asked.
What they supply
- The approved finding, with the requirement, what was found, the lots and quantities in scope and the numbered things asked of the supplier.
- The supplier's reply, exactly as received, with the date it arrived.
- A list of the attachments that came with it, one line each.
- The agreed quality responsibilities: the reply period, what a reply must cover, who verifies and any escalation route.
- Their settings: today's date, working days, closed dates and the next scheduled delivery.
What comes out
One check, in a fixed order: whether the reply was on time; each request in the finding against the reply; where the reply differs from your records or is unclear; the actions proposed, each labelled promised or reported done; the attachments received and the evidence to ask for; what is still to be verified, with the criterion where the finding states one; and the decision left to the owner. Every empty section says so.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The companies, the finding, the reply, the lots and every figure below are invented. Company K is an invented maker of insulated steel flasks. Supplier B, also invented, moulds the screw lids with silicone seals that Company K buys. Company K's supplier-quality owner raised a finding about leaking lids and has received Supplier B's reply. A quality technician prepares the check for the owner, who decides whether the answer is accepted. People are referred to by role.
The inputs come first, in full, so the template can be run on them. The check follows.
The inputs
1. The settings
Today: Tuesday 10 November 2026
Working days: Monday to Friday
Closed dates: none between 27 October and 20 November 2026
Owner who decides: supplier-quality owner, Company K
Next scheduled delivery from Supplier B: Tuesday 17 November 2026
2. The approved finding
Finding ref: QF-26-014
Status: Approved by the supplier-quality owner on 27 October 2026
Supplier: Supplier B
Item: LID-07 screw lid with silicone seal
Requirement: Spec LID-07 revision C, clause 4.2: no leakage during a
10-minute inverted hold of a filled flask.
Raised: Tuesday 27 October 2026
Reply due: Tuesday 3 November 2026
Found: Incoming inspection of lot L-8831 found seal leakage.
Sample and failures: 200 lids sampled from L-8831; 14 failed the
inverted hold.
Cavity marks on the 14 failed lids: cavity 6: 11; cavity 3: 2; not
readable: 1.
Lots in scope:
- L-8831: 4,000 lids, received at Company K on 20 October 2026,
moulding run R-1016.
- L-8834: 1,200 lids, shipped by Supplier B on 30 October 2026, in
transit, moulding run R-1016.
- Stock held at Supplier B from run R-1016: quantity not known to
Company K.
Requested of the supplier:
R1. Contain: confirm the quantity held at Supplier B and the quantity
in transit or at Company K from run R-1016.
R2. Cause: state the cause, with evidence.
R3. Lot L-8831: propose how the lids not sampled will be sorted or
replaced, and replace the failed lids.
R4. Corrective action: state the corrective actions, with owners and
dates.
R5. Effectiveness: show leak-test results for the next three lots
shipped.
Verification criteria:
R1: hold confirmed by a count and a hold record.
R5: each of the next three lots shipped passes the inverted hold with
no failures in a sample of 200 tested by Company K.
R2, R3, R4: none stated.
3. The supplier's reply
Received: Thursday 5 November 2026, from the quality manager, Supplier B
Thank you for the report on lot L-8831.
We have put 1,800 lids from run R-1016 on hold in our warehouse. The
cause is a worn seal groove in the mould for cavity 6, which let the
seal seat unevenly (photo attached). Our tooling lead will replace the
cavity 6 mould insert by 20 November 2026. Our production manager will
add a seal groove check to the start-of-shift checklist from 16
November 2026 (draft attached). We have sorted the remaining stock and
found no further defects. We will replace the 14 failed lids at our
cost.
Regards,
Quality manager, Supplier B
4. The attachments list
attachment_ref,description,date
A1,Photo of the cavity 6 mould insert showing the seal groove,2026-11-05
A2,Draft start-of-shift checklist with a new line "seal groove check",2026-11-05
5. The agreed quality responsibilities
Supplier B replies within 5 working days of an approved finding.
A reply covers containment, cause, correction, corrective action with
owners and dates, and evidence.
Company K verifies effectiveness.
Escalation route: none stated.
The check
SUPPLIER QUALITY RESPONSE CHECK: QF-26-014, Supplier B
For: Supplier-quality owner, Company K. Prepared Tuesday 10 November 2026 from the finding, the reply and the records supplied.
Inputs checked: finding QF-26-014, approved 27 October 2026; reply received 5 November 2026 from the quality manager, Supplier B; 2 attachments listed; reply period 5 working days (counted from 28 October 2026, the working day after the date raised, it ends on 3 November 2026, which agrees with the finding's due date); next scheduled delivery 17 November 2026; escalation route none stated. The cavity marks add up: 11 + 2 + 1 = 14 failed lids, as stated.
Timeliness: reply due Tuesday 3 November 2026, received Thursday 5 November 2026, 2 working days late.
1. EACH REQUEST AGAINST THE REPLY
R1. Contain: confirm the quantity held at Supplier B and the quantity in transit or at Company K from run R-1016.
Reply: S1 says 1,800 lids from run R-1016 are on hold in the Supplier B warehouse.
Status: Addressed in part. Left out: the quantity in transit (L-8834) and the quantity at Company K (L-8831). No count or hold record supplied.
Evidence supplied: none.
R2. Cause: state the cause, with evidence.
Reply: S2 gives a worn seal groove in the cavity 6 mould as the cause.
Status: Addressed in full. A cause is stated and A1 is attached. (What the cause leaves unexplained is in D1; this status does not say the cause is accepted.)
Evidence supplied: A1.
R3. Lot L-8831: propose how the lids not sampled will be sorted or replaced, and replace the failed lids.
Reply: S7 says the 14 failed lids will be replaced at Supplier B's cost. S5 and S6 say the remaining stock was sorted with no further defects found (D3).
Status: Addressed in part. Left out: a proposal that names the 3,800 lids of L-8831 not sampled (4,000 less the 200 sampled from L-8831), and a date for the replacement lids.
Evidence supplied: none.
R4. Corrective action: state the corrective actions, with owners and dates.
Reply: S3 (tooling lead, by 20 November 2026) and S4 (production manager, from 16 November 2026).
Status: Addressed in full. Each action has an owner and a date.
Evidence supplied: A2 (a draft, not a record of the check in use).
R5. Effectiveness: show leak-test results for the next three lots shipped.
Reply: nothing.
Status: Not addressed.
Evidence supplied: none.
Count: 5 requests: 2 addressed in full, 2 in part, 1 not addressed, 0 disputed.
2. WHERE THE REPLY DIFFERS FROM OUR RECORDS OR IS UNCLEAR
D1. Differs. The finding records the cavity marks on the 14 failed lids as cavity 6: 11, cavity 3: 2, not readable: 1. S2 names cavity 6 only, so the cause leaves 2 failed lids (cavity 3) and 1 lid (mark not readable) unexplained.
D2. Not mentioned. L-8834 (1,200 lids, shipped 30 October 2026, run R-1016) is in scope in the finding. The reply does not mention it. L-8831 appears only in the opening thanks; the reply says nothing about its lids beyond the 14 failed.
D3. Unclear. S5 says "the remaining stock" was sorted and S6 says no further defects were found. The reply does not say which stock, how many lids or what method, and no sort record is attached.
D4. Unclear. S1 gives 1,800 lids on hold with no date of the hold, no person and no count record, and does not say whether the 1,800 includes or excludes L-8831 and L-8834. The finding states that the quantity at Supplier B is not known to Company K, so there is no record to set 1,800 against.
D5. Timing. S3 is dated 20 November 2026, 3 days after the next scheduled delivery on 17 November 2026. S4 is dated 16 November 2026, 1 day before that delivery, and is supported only by a draft (A2). S7 has no date, so it cannot be set against the delivery.
D6. Not in the finding. S7 offers replacement "at our cost". The finding does not address cost. Listed only; no view is given.
3. ACTIONS PROPOSED
S1. Put 1,800 lids from run R-1016 on hold in the warehouse. By: not named. When: no date. State: Reported done, no evidence.
S3. Replace the cavity 6 mould insert. By: tooling lead. When: by 20 November 2026. State: Promised.
S4. Add a seal groove check to the start-of-shift checklist. By: production manager. When: from 16 November 2026. State: Promised. A2 is a draft and does not show the check in use.
S5. Sort the remaining stock. By: not named. When: no date. State: Reported done, no evidence.
S7. Replace the 14 failed lids at Supplier B's cost. By: not named. When: no date. State: Promised.
Count: 5 actions: 3 promised, 2 reported done with no evidence, 0 reported done with evidence supplied.
Not actions: S2 (statement of cause); S6 (other: a result reported, "no further defects").
4. ATTACHMENTS AND EVIDENCE TO ASK FOR
Received:
A1. Photo of the cavity 6 mould insert showing the seal groove (2026-11-05). Supports: S2, as a picture of the groove in cavity 6. Does not show: any link to the failed lids, or anything about cavity 3.
A2. Draft start-of-shift checklist with a new line "seal groove check" (2026-11-05). Supports: S4, as a plan. Does not show: that the check is in use.
Evidence to ask for:
E1. The count and the hold record behind S1, and the position of L-8834 and L-8831. For R1 and S1. Why: the reply does not mention L-8834 and gives no record (D2, D4).
E2. What accounts for the 2 failed lids from cavity 3 and the 1 lid with no readable mark. For R2 and S2. Why: S2 names cavity 6 only (D1).
E3. The sort record behind S5 and S6: which stock, how many lids, the method and the results. For R3, S5 and S6. Why: "the remaining stock" is not defined (D3).
E4. Supplier B's proposal for the lids of L-8831 not sampled. For R3. Why: the reply covers only the 14 failed lids.
E5. The date and the person for the replacement of the 14 lids. For R3 and S7. Why: S7 has no date or owner (D5).
E6. A record of the insert replaced and the completed start-of-shift checklists once the check is in use. For R4, S3 and S4. Why: both are promised, and A2 is a draft (D5).
E7. Leak-test results for each of the next three lots shipped. For R5. Why: R5 is not addressed.
5. STILL TO BE VERIFIED
V1. R1: the held quantity, seen by count and hold record. Criterion: hold confirmed by a count and a hold record. Earliest check: now.
V2. R3: the replacement of the 14 failed lids and the handling of the lids not sampled, seen on receipt. Criterion: not stated; owner to set. Earliest check: no date given.
V3. R4: the insert replaced and the groove check in use. Criterion: not stated; owner to set. Earliest check: 16 November 2026 for S4; 20 November 2026 for S3.
V4. R5: each of the next three lots shipped, tested by Company K. Criterion: each of the next three lots shipped passes the inverted hold with no failures in a sample of 200 tested by Company K. Earliest check: no date given.
6. FOR THE OWNER
Open: 3 of 5 requests are not addressed in full; 5 actions proposed, none verified by this check.
Questions:
1. Does a cause that covers cavity 6 (11 of the 14 failed lids) satisfy the finding, given that 2 lids carry cavity 3 and 1 is not readable? (D1, E2)
2. What is the position of L-8834 (1,200 lids, shipped 30 October 2026), and of the lids of L-8831 at Company K? (D2, E1)
3. Which stock do S5 and S6 refer to, and how many lids? (D3, E3)
4. What is the date, quantity and record of the hold in S1, and does the 1,800 include L-8831 and L-8834? (D4, E1)
5. Does the delivery due 17 November 2026 count toward the next three lots in R5, and is it to be inspected, given that S3 is dated 20 November 2026 and S4 rests on a draft? (D5, V4)
6. S7 offers replacement at Supplier B's cost, which the finding does not address. Who in the company deals with that? (D6)
7. What is to happen to the 3,800 lids of L-8831 that were not sampled? (R3, E4)
8. When are the leak-test results in R5 expected? (R5, E7)
Options, none recommended: (a) accept the response as it stands; (b) accept the actions proposed and keep the finding open until they are verified; (c) ask the supplier for the evidence in E1 to E7; (d) escalate by the route in the agreed responsibilities (none stated).
This check compares the reply with the finding and the records supplied. It does not accept the reply, close the finding, verify any action, or write to the supplier. The supplier-quality owner decides, and nothing has been sent or changed.
Where it fits
- Quality management, where findings are raised, replies judged and effectiveness checked.
- Procurement and suppliers, where the same supplier relationship is managed commercially.
- Supply chain and inventory, where stock in transit and on hold has to be accounted for.
- Manufacturing, where a purchased part that fails often stops a line.
- Consumer brands, where a supplier's defect becomes a customer's complaint.
- Hardware and physical technology, where components come from many small suppliers.
- Established businesses, where supplier replies pile up in inboxes and are judged from memory.
- Growth and scaling, when more suppliers and more findings outgrow one person's recall.
What has to change for your company
Name the owner who decides whether a reply is accepted, and write down the agreed reply period and what a reply must cover. Give each finding numbered requests, so the reply can be set against them, and state a verification criterion wherever you can, such as how many later lots must pass. Decide who may see the check and where it is kept. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini from the text you paste in; it needs no access to any system.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026 in two runs; the record of the second is published with it, and no edit has been made since. It has not yet been tested in a client environment, and it has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on a past finding and reply your quality owner already knows well, plus cases written in advance: a reply that never mentions one lot, a promised action reported as done, a figure that differs from your records, a late reply, a finding label left out. The owner checks every line against the finding and the reply before anyone relies on it. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this capability to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this capability template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: