A 20% cheaper quote, working conditions not yet known
2026NowDeadline · Decision window: 28 days until the annual supply contract
Realistic synthesis
The people, events, figures, and technology in this matter are stated assumptions. They are not to be treated as information about real individuals or as observed events. Background documents are separate sources, and symbolic interpretations are recorded as discovery paths.
The question to decide
The new supplier is 20% cheaper but has not adequately disclosed labor conditions at its subcontracted workplaces. An independent inspection would exceed the contract deadline, and keeping the existing supplier would mean reducing sales of some low-cost products. On what verification and cost assumptions should the purchasing committee choose a supplier?
Who decidesThe purchasing committee of a consumer goods company
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The new supplier meets delivery schedules and quality samples, but has not provided enough data on subcontracted sites and labor conditions. Deadline: Deadline: 28 days until the annual supply contract.
2026 fictional matter · Labor conditions at the cheaper supplier are hard to verify. The people, organizations, figures, and events form a synthetic premise constructed for comparison.
- Premise 1The new supplier meets delivery schedules and quality samples, but has not provided enough data on subcontracted sites and labor conditions.
- Premise 2The incumbent supplier provides inspection data, but a price rise means reducing sales of some low-priced products.
- Premise 3An independent inspection takes six weeks and would run past the deadline for this contract.
Where it holdsSupplier selection, inspections, and commitment to switching costs
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The actual workplaces and employment relationships at which the new supplier assigns production
- Unknown 2The scope and limits of what an inspection can confirm
- Unknown 3How far the company and customers can share the cost increase
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「the actual workplaces and employment relationships at which the new supplier assigns production」, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff of the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「the scope and limits of what an inspection can confirm」, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff of the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「how far the company and customers can share the cost increase」, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The new supplier accepted an inspection of its head office but refused an inspection of the subcontractor.
The incumbent supplier proposed reducing the size of the price increase in exchange for a long-term volume commitment.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Where is the continuity of a company rooted once its members, customers, and purpose have changed?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- OECD · SMEs and entrepreneurship accessed 2026-09-08
- ICA · Cooperative identity, values and principles accessed 2026-09-08
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-VENTURE-14· version 1.4.0- Content identity, SHA-256
71ce349e2236fef27f54bac1667dc489dc16b0227dc39fb512f6016d74627a7d- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON