This page is part of the supplier corrective action closure guide. It maps where each SCAR record sits and which identifier carries a case from one system to the next.
Four systems, one SCAR: who holds what
A corrective action request is a conversation between two companies, written down in several places. On the customer's side, records typically split across four systems, plus email for anything outside them.
| System | Record it holds | Linking key | Usual owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERP | Purchase orders, goods receipts, lot numbers, vendor master | Vendor code, part number and revision, lot or receipt number | Purchasing and materials |
| Incoming inspection | Inspection results, defect counts, measurements, photos | Lot number, part number and revision | Incoming inspection lead |
| QMS | SCAR request, status history, reopen entries, closure approval | SCAR number, vendor code, part number | Supplier quality head |
| Supplier portal | Containment, root cause and corrective action responses, attachments | SCAR number, supplier's own account ID | Portal administrator |
| Email and shared drives | Pre-portal requests, side discussions, spreadsheets of check results | SCAR number in subject lines, if used | Often nobody |
ISO guidance on documenting a nonconformity describes a report form with separate sections for root cause, correction, corrective action and verification of implementation and effectiveness. When a company's QMS mirrors that structure, each step lands in its own field and joins become easy. When the QMS has one free-text box, the same facts exist but must be read rather than matched.
Five keys and how well each joins
Rate each key before describing the history. The weakest key that a case needs sets the quality of the whole join.
| Key | Carried by | Join quality | Question to ask |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCAR number | QMS, portal, email subject lines | Good when the portal syncs automatically | Were any requests issued by email outside both tools? |
| Supplier ID | ERP vendor master, QMS, portal account | Fair; codes can differ between systems | Was the vendor master merged or cleaned up? |
| Part number and revision | ERP, inspection, QMS, sometimes the supplier's own part number | Fair | Is there a cross-reference to supplier part numbers? |
| Lot or receipt number | ERP, inspection record, supplier verification responses | Poor if typed by hand | Was the lot recorded at every verification? |
| Dated status changes and reopens | QMS audit trail, portal history | Varies | Can a reopen be told apart from a new SCAR? |
The last row matters most for value. A reopened SCAR, where the first fix failed and a second was tested, is the most informative record in the set. If the QMS records reopens as new SCARs with no link back, the history splits into apparently unrelated defects. The worked exception case shows what a reopen looks like when it is kept intact.
One SCAR joined across all four (Illustrative)
A fictional 620-person HVAC equipment maker issues a SCAR for porosity in aluminum castings. Every identifier below is invented to show how one case reads when each join holds.
| Step | System | Record | Key handed to the next step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Castings received against a purchase order | ERP | Goods receipt for part HX-220 rev C, lot 24-1187, vendor V-0412 | Lot 24-1187 |
| Inspection finds porosity on sectioned samples | Incoming inspection | Defect record for lot 24-1187 with sample counts and photos | Lot and part HX-220 rev C |
| SCAR raised and stock quarantined | QMS | SCAR-3391 for V-0412, part HX-220 rev C, lot 24-1187 | SCAR-3391 |
| Supplier responds with containment and root cause | Supplier portal | Response on SCAR-3391 citing degassing practice | SCAR-3391 |
| Next lots verified | Incoming inspection and ERP | Results for lots 24-1240, 24-1302 and 24-1355, all passing | Lot numbers, part revision |
| SCAR closed | QMS | Closure approval on SCAR-3391, citing the three lots | SCAR-3391 |
Read down the right-hand column: each row hands a key to the next, and the closure cites the exact lots that proved the fix. If the verification lots had not been recorded, the closure would still exist, but nobody could show which deliveries it rested on.
Where SCAR chains break
Four patterns explain most broken joins. Each is a question for the company, not a fault to report.
- Two vendor codes. The ERP vendor master and the portal identify the supplier differently, and a merger or cleanup changed codes midway. The fix is usually a mapping table, if one was kept.
- Supplier part numbers. The supplier's response cites its own part number. Without a cross-reference, the response cannot be tied to the customer's revision.
- Responses left in the portal. The QMS shows the request and closure, while the supplier's reasoning and attachments stay on the portal. When the portal contract ends, the middle of the case can go with it.
- Lots missing from verification. Verification is recorded as "accepted" without the lot numbers inspected, so closure cannot be traced to evidence. That matters because the ISO/TC 176 vocabulary frames corrective action as removing a cause to prevent recurrence, and ISO 9001 auditing guidance expects the effectiveness of the action to be verified; without lot numbers, the record cannot show either.
What each QMS, portal or ERP can export, and how long history is retained, varies by vendor and contract; the company should confirm it with its own providers. The Epicor Kinetic historical data guide shows the kind of ERP questions to raise.
EpicorQuestions for the supplier quality head
Keep every question at metadata level. Nothing here needs a file, a screenshot or a login.
- Roughly how many requests a year, since when, and in which tools?
- Does the QMS form have separate fields for root cause, correction, corrective action and verification?
- Are lot numbers recorded on the defect record and on each verification?
- Are supplier responses pulled back into the QMS, or held only on the portal?
- How are reopens recorded, and roughly how many cases reopened?
- Who administers each system, and who could authorize a licensing discussion?
The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. How supplier confidentiality affects the portal responses, which cases a buyer would want and whether an offer follows stay unknown until SourceX's review. The SCAR referral brief template turns these answers into a handoff, and the root cause analysis records page covers the analysis files that sit beside SCARs. If a site is closing or the business is being sold, manufacturing plant closure and how to sell a manufacturing business cover those triggers.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a manufacturer's corrective actions can be followed from receipt lot to supplier response to verified closure on shared keys, register as a partner, check it against who qualifies and read the program terms before introducing its supplier quality head.