Turn a supplier claim into a reviewable question: what evidence would satisfy the requirement, who will check it and what remains unresolved?
Use one record for each criterion. The working register contains starter criteria with empty evidence fields. Its entries are prompts for your assessment, not findings about a supplier.
Write the engagement being evaluated and name the person who owns the selection decision. Agree which criteria are mandatory and what evidence would satisfy each one.
For a software vendor assessment, Pharos Production’s IT consulting and architecture review provides the relevant published service scope. This worksheet is a new editorial template. It is not presented as a completed client assessment.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Criterion | The requirement to evaluate, expressed so a reviewer can check it |
| Evidence requested | The specific document, demonstration or reference needed |
| Source | An accessible evidence reference, with version or date where relevant |
| Reviewer | The person responsible for checking this criterion |
| Observation | What the supplied material establishes, limited to its actual scope |
| Unresolved question | The remaining gap between the requirement and the evidence |
| Decision | Pending, Accept, Clarify or Stop |
| Checked date | When the reviewer examined the evidence |
| Next action and owner | The requested follow-up and the person responsible for it |
| Review deadline | When the decision or follow-up is needed |
Store the evidence in an appropriately restricted system. Use a reference in the register rather than pasting a password or confidential implementation data into it.
Pending: the criterion has not been checked. An empty evidence field stays pending.
Accept: the named reviewer has inspected the evidence and it satisfies the requirement for the stated scope. Record the basis and checked date.
Clarify: evidence is incomplete, inconsistent or too broad. Write the specific question and the next action before continuing the review.
Stop: a mandatory criterion is not met, or a required evidence gap prevents proceeding under the agreed selection rules. Record the reason and refer it to the decision owner.
Do not calculate an overall score by counting accepted rows. One unresolved mandatory criterion may determine the decision even when other entries are accepted. Agree any weighting before reviewing suppliers.
The rows below are invented to demonstrate the method. The example document labels do not refer to real files or clients. No assessment or system test was executed.
| Criterion | Evidence and observation | Unresolved question | Reviewer | Decision and checked date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example: integration responsibility is assigned | EXAMPLE-MAP-A names a client owner and supplier owner for the payment-provider boundary | None within the example’s ownership criterion; runtime behavior has not been tested | Technical reviewer | Accept for ownership mapping only; October 18, 2026 |
| Example: the proposed team delivered the cited case | A fictional case summary describes the company’s work but does not identify the proposed team’s role | Which proposed team members held the relevant delivery responsibility? | Selection lead | Clarify; October 18, 2026 |
| Example: client repository control is mandatory | A fictional proposal leaves the repository under supplier-only administration, contrary to the agreed requirement | Can the proposal be changed before selection? | Technical reviewer | Stop pending an acceptable ownership proposal; October 18, 2026 |
An accepted ownership map does not establish successful payment processing. Keep the requirement narrow enough that the decision matches what was actually checked.