CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Watch the supplier base for insolvency, certificate and owner changes

For: Supplier risk manager or head of procurement with single-sourced or regulated suppliers

Pattern: WatchtowerNeeds a connectorDesigned for 10 to 400 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

Supplier risk is assessed at onboarding and then left. Quality certificates lapse, insurance expires, owners change and payment remarks appear, and procurement hears about it when a delivery fails.

The ask

“I connected our supplier list, the certificates and insurance documents we hold, and the registry and news sources we trust. Keep checking each supplier and tell me when something changes that affects whether we can rely on them, with the source and what it touches.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Supplier master with criticality and sourcing status
  • Certificates and insurance documents with expiry dates
  • Company registry filings
  • Adverse media and insolvency notices
  • Contracts naming required certifications

The unit of work

One worker task per one supplier against one source.

Why a swarm fits

Each check concerns one supplier and one source, with a small context. When a source changes, only that supplier's risk note and the contracts that depend on it are redone.

Not for

A small supplier base a buyer knows personally, or suppliers already covered by a rated monitoring service you trust.

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Scope checkYes or no, with a probability

    Before work starts on a unit

    Does this filing or notice concern the same legal entity as our supplier, by registration number or registered address, rather than a similarly named company?

    Sees only: The filing header and the supplier master record

    Why: Name-alike companies are the main source of false supplier alerts.

    • Yes: 0.70 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.70thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.40thenSkip this unit

  2. Scope checkYes or no, with a probability

    Before work starts on a unit

    Does this change affect a certification, insurance cover or ownership condition that one of our contracts with this supplier requires?

    Sees only: The changed item and the required-certification clauses of that supplier's contracts

    Why: Only work that depended on the changed source is redone.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenAccept
    • No: below 0.30thenSkip this unit

  3. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the source document itself state the event in the alert, such as an insolvency filing, a lapsed certificate or a new owner, with a date?

    Sees only: The draft alert and the quoted source passage with its publication date

    Why: An alert a risk manager cannot trace to a dated source will be ignored next time.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  4. Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Is this media report confirmed by an official filing or a second independent outlet among the sources shown?

    Sees only: The media report and the other sources retrieved for the same supplier and week

    Why: Single-source press stories are reported as unconfirmed, not as fact.

    • Yes: 0.80 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.80thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.50thenMark unresolved

  5. Run control, between rounds

    Another round?Yes or no, with a probability

    Between rounds

    Has anything in this supplier's sources changed since the last cycle, so that its risk note needs rewriting?

    Sees only: Dates and fingerprints of the supplier's sources, this cycle and last

    Why: Unchanged suppliers cost nothing in a cycle.

    • Yes: 0.50 or higherthenContinue
    • Unsure: 0.20 up to 0.50thenContinue
    • No: below 0.20thenStop

  6. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Would acting on this alert change the supplier's approved status, or start requalification or a second source?

    Sees only: The verified alert and the supplier's criticality and sourcing status

    Why: Supplier status changes belong to the risk manager.

    Accountable: A risk manager decides whether to requalify, dual-source or suspend a supplier; alerts alone never change supplier status.

    • Yes: 0.40 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.15thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model sets what to watch per supplier from its criticality and the certifications its contracts require.

    Decisions here:1. Scope check2. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from an open-weight family re-read one source for one supplier and report only what changed.

    Designed for 10 to 400 agents, one worker task per one supplier against one source. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks that the change concerns this legal entity and is supported by the source.

    Decisions here:3. Evidence check4. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model updates the affected risk notes and links each change to the contracts and categories it touches.

    Decisions here:5. Another round?

  5. Accountable person

    A risk manager decides whether to requalify, dual-source or suspend a supplier; alerts alone never change supplier status.

    Decisions here:6. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Entity identity is confirmed by registration number, not by name alone
  • Every alert cites the source document and its publication date
  • Certificate scope and site are checked against what the contract requires
  • Media reports without a second source are marked unconfirmed

What comes back

  • Change alerts per supplier with source and affected contracts
  • Certificates and insurance documents expiring or lapsed
  • Current risk note per critical supplier with its evidence
  • Log of what was re-checked and what was left untouched

What to measure

  • Alerts a risk manager judges worth acting on
  • Supplier events first learned from elsewhere
  • Time from source change to alert
  • Cost per supplier per checking cycle

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Procurement and supply chain

Reconcile agreed terms across supplier contracts and amendments

For: Procurement lead or category manager preparing renewals or a supplier performance review

The price, delivery date and penalty that apply to each supplier are spread over a master agreement, amendments and emails.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceRuns today5 decisionsDesigned for 4 to 150 agents

Check tender bids against every mandatory and scored requirement

For: Sourcing manager or chair of a tender evaluation committee running a formal RFP

Each bid runs to hundreds of pages of technical, commercial, legal and sustainability annexes.

Pattern: Specialist panelNeeds live models5 decisionsDesigned for 8 to 300 agents