What is being tested
Were charges for maintaining customer-owned tooling separately authorized? The boundary for this investigation is customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority. Begin with the disputed transaction or population, then identify which tooling ownership agreement establishes the observed position and which maintenance work order supports the comparison. A difference in totals should not replace this question.
Evidence: tooling ownership agreement
For customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority, tooling ownership agreement must be linked to maintenance work order. Retain the applicable wording, effective dates and scope of covered transactions. Identify the event or population that controls the calculation. Do not silently replace a contractual definition with a dashboard label, customary practice or the latest published rule.
Evidence: maintenance work order
For customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority, maintenance work order must be linked to repair acceptance. Keep the accepted version, covered scope and relationship to earlier documents. Identify whether it adds, replaces or transfers an obligation. A newer document should not be assumed to govern an earlier transaction unless its scope and effective period support that conclusion.
Evidence: repair acceptance
For customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority, repair acceptance must be linked to supplier invoice. Preserve the authorized sender, accepted scope and event timestamp. Distinguish a request from its acceptance and check whether the approver had authority for this change. Later approval should remain visible as a separate event rather than rewrite the original sequence.
Evidence: supplier invoice
For customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority, supplier invoice must be linked to tooling ownership agreement. Keep the issued document version and line-level quantity, currency and service period. A header total cannot establish which component is being tested. Retain later corrections as linked versions, so a replacement does not create a second liability.
Reconciliation logic
Separate ownership from maintenance responsibility and match the charge to an approved maintenance event. Build the comparison at the level identified by tooling ownership agreement and retain the governing version from maintenance work order. Show intermediate classifications and excluded items separately; a net total can hide an unsupported component or a correctly offset correction.
Exception conditions
Customer ownership does not automatically make supplier maintenance free. Treat the item as an unresolved exception only when the comparison described here cannot be supported by the linked tooling ownership agreement, maintenance work order, repair acceptance, supplier invoice. Document the conflicting input or rule. A plausible operational explanation requires validation, but it should not be discarded to maximize an apparent financial difference.
Human review and outcome
Engineering confirms work and procurement confirms responsibility. Produce a tooling-maintenance authorization schedule. Keep the reviewer's reason and source references with that disposition. A supported correction should be followed to the revised record or settlement; an accepted explanation can close the question with no adjustment. Missing authority or evidence should remain an open task rather than a confirmed recovery.
Limitations and processing boundary
A PO, acceptance record or supplier credit request alone cannot prove a complete recovery. The authoritative supplier, contract, PO, invoice and receipt processor is not complete. Treat commercial interpretation, authorized acceptance and final credit application as separate validation steps. In this scenario, absence of tooling ownership agreement or maintenance work order limits whether the comparison can be completed. The review method describes what people should validate, not a promise that AuditRes automatically detects or executes this specific outcome.
AuditRes pathway
Discuss customer-owned tooling maintenance charge authority in the Procurement workspace. Review current plans, the shared platform and secure evidence requirements; use the existing contact path to confirm the sources and validation this scope requires.
AuditRes Procurement: Available for onboarding. Public previews use synthetic demonstration data; production processing remains gated until applicable customer sources and authoritative processors are connected and validated.
Neighboring financial questions
- Review supplier tooling amortization in unit prices
- Quote validity expiry before purchase acceptance
- Supplier quote optional-scope inclusion
- Supplier quote discount stacking prohibition
Procurement resource hub · All guides in this evidence collection