This template belongs to the supplier corrective action closure guide. Copy the blank version, fill it in with the supplier quality head, and compare your result with the completed example underneath.
How to use this template
A quality systems advisor usually hears about SCAR history sideways: a portal replacement, an audit finding about verification, a complaint that old closures cannot be found. The brief turns that conversation into something an executive can read in two minutes and forward without editing.
Three rules keep it useful:
- Fill it in together. Sit with the supplier quality head for twenty minutes. Every figure should come from them, in their words, with "about" where they are estimating.
- Count, do not copy. Ask how many, how long and where. Never ask to see a request file, an 8D response or a portal screen.
- Mark unknowns. If nobody knows whether pre-portal requests survive, write "unknown, IT to confirm" rather than guessing.
One field asks about the shape of the company's form, because ISO's Auditing Practices Group shows a report layout with separate places for cause analysis, the immediate fix, the lasting fix and a check of effectiveness. If the company's request form is laid out that way, the brief can say so in one line, and that single line tells SourceX a great deal about how deep each record goes.
The blank brief (copy and fill)
Every field is a description, never a record. Leave the right column empty until the supplier quality head answers.
| Field | What to write | Your entry |
|---|---|---|
| Company | Sector, headcount (full-time at peak, contractors excluded), country | To fill |
| Business task | One sentence on how requests are issued, answered, checked and closed | To fill |
| Record classes | Which of these exist: defect reports, SCARs, supplier responses, implemented-action evidence, verification inspections, reopen events, closure approvals | To fill |
| Form structure | Does the request form give cause, immediate fix, lasting fix and effectiveness check their own fields? | To fill |
| Systems | Quality system, supplier portal, shared mailbox, spreadsheets; name them as plain labels | To fill |
| Years of history | Per system, with the start year and any gap | To fill |
| Volumes | Requests issued a year; share closed on measured lots; number sent back for a second fix | To fill |
| Record owner | Who runs the process day to day | To fill |
| Authorized contact | The executive who can approve a licensing discussion | To fill |
| Access event | A dated portal contract end, form change or site closure, if any | To fill |
| Hard case | One sentence on the most difficult kind of SCAR, such as a fix that caused a new defect | To fill |
| Not shared | Confirm: no supplier names, responses, drawings, exports or logins | To fill |
The "Hard case" row matters more than it looks. ISO/TC 176 notes that a problem can have more than one cause, and ISO auditing guidance has auditors check that the actions taken actually worked. A history that captures a first fix failing and a second one being tested is richer than one that records only end states. The worked SCAR case shows what that sequence looks like.
A completed brief (Illustrative)
The company below is fictional, and every number is invented to show the level of detail that helps.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Company | Industrial machinery maker, about 640 full-time employees at peak, United States |
| Business task | Issuing SCARs to casting and machining suppliers, tracking responses, verifying fixes on incoming lots and approving closure |
| Record classes | Defect reports, SCARs, supplier responses, action evidence, verification inspections, reopen events, closure approvals |
| Form structure | Yes since 2019: cause, immediate fix, lasting fix and effectiveness check each have a field |
| Systems | QMS since 2016; supplier portal since 2019; supplier quality mailbox before that |
| Years of history | Quality system about ten years; portal about seven; mailbox requests from 2012 to 2018, completeness unknown |
| Volumes | About 140 requests a year; roughly two thirds closed on measured lots; about 25 sent back for a second fix in the last five years |
| Record owner | Supplier quality manager |
| Authorized contact | CEO, with the COO and CFO consulted |
| Access event | Supplier portal contract ends in the third quarter of next year; replacement selected |
| Hard case | A heat-treatment change fixed cracking on one casting and caused distortion; recorded as a reopen on the same SCAR |
| Not shared | No supplier names, responses, drawings, exports or logins |
Read the example the way SourceX would. The measured-lot share and the second-fix count say each sign-off rests on evidence, the form structure says each decision has its own field, and the dated contract end gives a real reason to talk now. The mailbox gap is stated plainly, which is exactly right.
Checking the brief before it goes out
Before you hand the brief to the supplier quality head for forwarding, run four checks.
- Could any line identify a supplier? Replace names with categories ("casting suppliers").
- Is every number an estimate from the owner? If you wrote it from memory, ask again.
- Is the authorized contact an executive? A portal administrator or quality engineer can describe records but rarely approve a licensing discussion. The licensing authority question explains who usually can.
- Does the access event have a date from a contract? A project-plan date is a guess. Write which one it is.
For tone, the warm introduction brief for a business owner shows how to frame the covering note. The root cause analysis records page explains how 8D and CAPA files are judged, and plants facing a shutdown are covered under manufacturing plant closure.
What the brief cannot settle
The brief qualifies an introduction; it does not decide anything. 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.
Four things stay open until SourceX reviews the opportunity with the company: whether supplier responses can be included given supply agreements and portal terms (see why data rights matter), which SCARs a buyer would want, how supplier identities would be de-identified, and whether any offer follows. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout.
On the partner side, sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting. The first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application, and one partner is credited per company. Any reward is calculated on what SourceX actually pays the company and funded separately; it is never deducted from the company's payment. Illustrative only: a $250,000 Actual Supplier Payout would mean a $62,500 reward. See how rewards work. More sectors are on the industries hub.
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.
When the supplier quality head has confirmed every field and named the executive who can say yes, register as a partner, check the company against who qualifies and read the program terms before you submit the brief.