Read this article in another language
Short answer: Review completed squishy toy orders using original delivery commitments, accepted quantities and inspection evidence. A fictional example shows how to record partial deliveries, defects and corrective actions.
A repeat-order scorecard should follow the approved SKU and packed shipment. Use product records to identify what was ordered, then score delivery and quality from actual evidence.
Fields for a SKU-level scorecard
| Reference | Baseline field | Evidence to record |
|---|---|---|
| RIVO-AUG26-032 Capybara | 36/carton reference | Approved sample, carton count, actual gross weight and defect photos |
| RIVO-XMAS26-003 Ice Cube | 100 g / 144-carton reference | Season, batch, packed weight and arrival date |
| RUIWO-PU-2609-004 Keyboard | 50 g / 288-carton reference | Package version, unit count and care-card approval |
Set thresholds from your own accepted order history. Do not invent a pass rate until you have agreed the defect definition, sample size and corrective action.
Review squishy toy supplier performance against what each purchase-order line promised and what the buyer actually accepted. A useful record connects delivery dates, accepted quantities, inspection findings and approved changes. It helps both sides decide whether to continue, correct a problem or pause additional allocation.
On this page
This worksheet reviews completed PO lines with an existing supplier. For choosing a supplier before ordering, use the separate manufacturer selection guide. Here, there is no weighted capability score or universal passing percentage.
Set the PO-line basis before calculating
Use one line for one SKU, approved version, selling unit, quantity and delivery commitment. If the agreement schedules installments, identify those schedule lines before delivery. Do not split a late line afterward to create extra successful deliveries.
Define the milestone precisely: dispatch, arrival at a named warehouse, or accepted receipt. They are different events. The example below measures accepted receipt at the buyer's warehouse. A dispatch timestamp cannot satisfy that commitment.
Retain the original agreed date and quantity. Store any approved revision beside them, with its date, reason and approver. A revised operational plan can guide recovery, but changing a deadline after lateness must not turn the original result into an on-time result.
Keep one row per order line
| Field | Record to retain |
|---|---|
| Identity and scope | PO/line ID; SKU; approved sample and pack revision; pieces or sets; original ordered quantity. |
| Commitment | Original date, named milestone and location; separately recorded approved changes. |
| Actual fulfilment | Each receipt ID/date, accepted quantity/date, rejected or pending quantity, and line completion date. |
| Inspection evidence | Inspection method, unique units examined, confirmed defective units, pending observations and evidence references. |
| Quotation completeness | Complete / missing fields / not applicable; identify missing fields rather than inventing a numerical rating. |
| Change approval | No change / approved before implementation / unapproved / unresolved; attach the relevant approval. |
| Issue closure | Open / action implemented / verified closed; owner, agreed action date, verification and acceptance record. |
Count each receipt once. Link replacements to the original line and exclude rejected originals from accepted quantity. Cap fulfilled demand at the ordered quantity; record over-deliveries separately. A negotiated short close remains a shortage against the original commitment, with its resolution recorded.
Separate delivery results from inspection results
For completed lines, an on-time, complete line has its entire ordered quantity accepted by the original accepted-receipt deadline. Divide qualifying lines by the measurable completed lines reviewed. Disclose lines with missing baseline records separately instead of assuming they were on time. Also list unfinished overdue lines and their missing quantities; a completed-line percentage alone hides that backlog.
Quantity performance answers a different question: accepted units by the original deadline divided by original ordered units in the same reviewed lines. Never count each partial delivery as a new order line or substitute quantity percentage for line percentage.
For quality, divide confirmed defective units by unique units actually inspected in the stated inspection group. One unit with two defects counts as one defective unit, although both defect types can be logged. Keep suspected issues pending until evidence supports a decision; pending does not mean passed.
When only a sample was inspected, label the result as an observation within that sample. Do not present it as a measured whole-shipment defect rate or combine unlike inspection scopes into one unqualified rate. Use the quality inspection checklist to document selection, criteria and traceability.
Fictional example: three completed PO lines
All quantities, dates and outcomes below are fictional teaching data, not RUIWO performance or a customer case. Each line orders individual toys; accepted receipt is the agreed milestone. All three lines are complete at the review cutoff.
- Line A: 400 ordered, due 10 October; 400 accepted on 10 October.
- Line B: 300 ordered, due 10 October; 240 accepted on 10 October and 60 on 13 October.
- Line C: 300 ordered, due 12 October; 288 accepted that day and 12 held for investigation. Those 12 were subsequently confirmed defective; 12 replacements were accepted on 16 October.
Only A was complete on time: 1 ÷ 3 = 33.3%. On-time accepted quantity was 400 + 240 + 288 = 928; 928 ÷ 1,000 = 92.8%. B and C each remain one late line, regardless of how many parcels arrived.
In this fictional example, all 1,000 original units were individually inspected. The confirmed defective-unit result is 12 ÷ 1,000 = 1.2%. Inspect and log the replacement units separately; do not enlarge the original inspection denominator to dilute the result. Replacement acceptance completes C but does not erase its original defect or delay.
Agree the action without a misleading overall score
Review the cause and responsibility alongside each result, including buyer changes, receiving delays and transport events. Keep the factual outcome visible even where responsibility is disputed. Three lines cannot establish a statistically reliable long-term supplier ranking.
Choose a documented action: continue the approved arrangement, require a specific correction before the next allocation, or pause additional allocation pending evidence. A promise is not verified closure. The quality-complaint guide supports corrective-action records; the reorder guide carries approved changes into the next order.
Joint review: period and completed PO lines ___; original milestone/date ___; accepted quantities and dates ___; overdue open lines ___; inspected units / confirmed defective / pending ___; approval or quotation gaps ___; correction owner and date ___; closure evidence ___; next-allocation decision ___.
For a RUIWO quotation, send your SKU list, purchase quantities, destination, packaging and replenishment plan. Reference the previous approved version where relevant and identify proposed changes so the next offer can address the actual order.