Trace a revised supplier arrival into affected material demand

Before a pilot — required, unexecuted

1. A separately authorized pilot must use an independently prepared answer key, not the model’s own output as its oracle.

2. Verify the reported issue on the exact target product version and prefer a sufficient native feature or simpler method.

3. Before a pilot, add duplicate allocation-edge IDs, one demand covered by several supply lines, and an explicit date/buffer boundary to the independent planner answer key.

Setup requirements

1. A buyer-approved revision must identify exact supply lines and its effective time.

2. The planner supplies an existing allocation graph; unallocated stock or demand cannot be assigned by the model.

3. Define cancelled, received, reserved and remaining quantities, a frozen snapshot and calendar before analysis.

4. Check whether a native receipt-date update and standard planning report resolves the friction before choosing this plan.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   supplier_revision.txt

   Source or owner

   Buyer

   Scope

   Synthetic approved revised date, affected PO-line IDs, evidence span and approval state.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only; no real personal, customer financial or employee data in this design.

   Permission needed

   A future pilot requires exact owner-approved minimized copies, approved processing environment, retention and recipients; no pilot authorized here.

2. Name

   supply_snapshot.csv

   Source or owner

   Inventory controller

   Scope

   Synthetic PO/receipt lines, quantity, UOM, availability date, status, reservations and snapshot time.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only; no real personal, customer financial or employee data in this design.

   Permission needed

   A future pilot requires exact owner-approved minimized copies, approved processing environment, retention and recipients; no pilot authorized here.

3. Name

   allocation_edges.csv

   Source or owner

   Production planner

   Scope

   Explicit supply-line-to-demand-line quantities, stock coverage and cancelled/released edges; no allocations inferred by item alone.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only; no real personal, customer financial or employee data in this design.

   Permission needed

   A future pilot requires exact owner-approved minimized copies, approved processing environment, retention and recipients; no pilot authorized here.

4. Name

   demand_snapshot.csv

   Source or owner

   Production planner

   Scope

   Need-by dates, remaining required quantities, identifiers and frozen planning calendar.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only; no real personal, customer financial or employee data in this design.

   Permission needed

   A future pilot requires exact owner-approved minimized copies, approved processing environment, retention and recipients; no pilot authorized here.

5. Name

   scope_and_rules.txt

   Source or owner

   Planner

   Scope

   Authoritative date source, date-only/time-zone semantics, export completeness, relevant calendar and horizon.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only; no real personal, customer financial or employee data in this design.

   Permission needed

   A future pilot requires exact owner-approved minimized copies, approved processing environment, retention and recipients; no pilot authorized here.

Human approval boundaries

1. Before a pilot, the accountable owner approves exact synthetic/minimized copies, processing environment, retention and allowed recipients.

2. Owner validates identity mappings, authority, status definitions and all unresolved evidence.

3. Any source mutation, account access, upload, external communication, commercial commitment, payment or changed permission requires separate appropriate authorization.

The problem

A changed inbound date may be visible in purchasing but absent from planning. The planner needs to know which existing material allocations become exposed, without assuming every order for the same item is delayed.

Suggested task

Trace an owner-confirmed receipt-date revision through existing quantity allocations and compare supply availability with recorded demand dates.

What you could produce

A quantity-conserving impact matrix, stale-date comparisons and planner questions; no revised schedule or customer promise.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent may extract revision meaning and explain conflicting source dates; identity joins, quantity conservation and date comparisons must be deterministic. If the ERP already exposes the complete allocation graph and delay report, that native report is preferable. A clean fixed-schema export needs only a script or spreadsheet; an agent is useful only when narrative revisions and evidence exceptions remain.

When this work comes up

Role

Buyer and production planner

Trigger

An approved revised receipt date differs from the planning snapshot.

Finished output

A quantity-conserving impact matrix, stale-date comparisons and planner questions; no revised schedule or customer promise.

Human approval

Planner approves identities, allocation basis and interpretation. No replan, supplier contact or customer promise change.

Evidence boundary

Problem sources establish human friction; official capability sources establish primitives. Operational steps, synthetic examples and acceptance fixtures are original untested designs.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Inventory approved copies, snapshot times and completeness. Verify units and exact line IDs; distinguish a supplier forecast from an owner-approved planning assumption.

   Output: Scope and authority manifest.

   Expected output: Scope and authority manifest.

   Checkpoint: No new delivery commitment is invented.

   Approval gate: Buyer confirms the date source and bounded horizon.

2. 2

   Extract each date revision with its evidence span, original value and revised value. Match only exact approved supply identifiers; isolate ambiguous or superseded statements.

   Output: Revision-to-supply bridge.

   Expected output: Revision-to-supply bridge.

   Checkpoint: Same item code does not prove the same supply line.

   Approval gate: Buyer resolves competing revisions.

3. 3

   Build the supplied allocation graph, keeping quantities, stock coverage and edge statuses. Reconcile allocated totals against available and required quantities in the same unit.

   Output: Checked allocation ledger.

   Expected output: Checked allocation ledger.

   Checkpoint: Over-allocation, incompatible units and missing edges remain holds.

   Approval gate: Planner approves allocation semantics.

4. 4

   Compare the approved revised availability date to each linked demand need-by date. Separate exposed allocated quantity, unaffected later demand and uncertain coverage; retain the original planning-view date alongside the revision.

   Output: Quantity-specific exposure and stale-view matrix.

   Expected output: Quantity-specific exposure and stale-view matrix.

   Checkpoint: No full-order lateness claim when only part of demand is exposed.

   Approval gate: Planner validates the interpretation of dates and buffers.

5. 5

   Check cancelled demand, received supply, alternate already-approved allocations and stale snapshots. Explain what evidence would resolve each hold without reallocating inventory or constructing a new plan.

   Output: Exceptions and unaffected controls.

   Expected output: Exceptions and unaffected controls.

   Checkpoint: A missing link is unknown impact, not zero impact.

   Approval gate: Inventory owner confirms available stock and stale-state caveats.

6. 6

   Produce separate draft files with source rows, calculations, frozen inputs and owner-decision fields. Group questions by responsible planning owner without sending them.

   Output: Reviewable supply-impact packet.

   Expected output: Reviewable supply-impact packet.

   Checkpoint: No ERP write, pick release, supplier contact or customer notification.

   Approval gate: Planner decides any subsequent replan or communication separately.

Original starter prompt — proposed

Origin

editorial_proposal

Execution authorized

No

Text

Using only {approved_synthetic_inputs} and {owner_rules}, Trace an owner-confirmed receipt-date revision through existing quantity allocations and compare supply availability with recorded demand dates. Follow the six-step design. Preserve evidence spans and uncertainty; use inspectable deterministic arithmetic and joins. Write only separate draft review artifacts to {output_folder}. Stop on personal data, missing authority or any required live action. Do not access accounts, mutate source files, send, upload, post, settle, pay or provision access.

Expected output schema — proposed

Primary key

1. scenario_id

2. supply_line_id

3. demand_line_id

4. allocation_edge_id

Columns

1. original_availability

2. revised_availability

3. need_by

4. uom

5. allocated_quantity

6. already_covered_quantity

7. exposed_quantity

8. state

9. authority_reference

10. source_rows

11. planner_question

12. owner_decision

Record status

draft_pending_review

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Synthetic authored example, not observed output

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Input

Supply

SYN-L1

Revised date

2026-10-20

Allocation

Syn-w1

20

Syn-w2

20

Need by

Syn-w1

2026-10-15

Syn-w2

2026-10-23

Expected

1. Demand

   SYN-W1

   Exposed units

   20

   State

   planner_review

2. Demand

   SYN-W2

   Exposed units

   0

   State

   no_date_exposure_in_scenario

Notes

Dates are scenario assumptions; no assertion of actual future delivery.

Limits

1. Original proposed workflow, not a source-documented agent implementation.

2. No fixture or workflow executed and no acceptance result exists.

3. An individual complaint establishes a reported friction, not frequency, causal harm or current demand.

4. Old issue dates and unknown product builds require target-version and simpler-remedy checks.

5. Account tools, export completeness and end-to-end compatibility remain unverified.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Check the shared capability source and the plan requirements.

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown and untested.

2. Name

   Claude

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Check the shared capability source and the plan requirements.

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown and untested.

Failure modes

1. Shared item identifiers cause unrelated demand to be marked late.

2. Allocated quantities exceed the source-line amount or mix incompatible units.

3. A revised supplier forecast is mistaken for an approved date or a cancelled order remains active.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Signal

   Shared item identifiers cause unrelated demand to be marked late.

   Recovery

   Require exact allocation edges; move item-only joins to an unresolved list.

   Resume condition

   Planner supplies the authoritative line relation.

2. Signal

   Allocated quantities exceed the source-line amount or mix incompatible units.

   Recovery

   Stop impact totals for the affected component and expose the conservation residual.

   Resume condition

   Owner confirms quantity/status/UOM corrections in a new approved copy.

3. Signal

   A revised supplier forecast is mistaken for an approved date or a cancelled order remains active.

   Recovery

   Preserve both statements with authority and snapshot labels.

   Resume condition

   Buyer/planner resolves the approved scenario.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Synthetic L1 has 40 units, revised arrival October 10 to October 20. W1 needs 30 units on October 15: 10 already covered by stock and 20 allocated from L1. W2 needs 20 on October 23, also allocated from L1. W3 shares the SKU but has no allocation edge. Add cancelled W4 and a stale revision.

Acceptance checks

1. L1 allocations total 40; W1 exposure is 20 units, not 30; W2 has no date exposure under the supplied scenario.

2. W3 remains unlinked/unknown; W4 is excluded only under explicit cancelled-state rules.

3. A stale revision never replaces the approved revision; incompatible UOM creates a hold.

4. Removing the completeness attestation makes absence uncertain rather than complete.

5. No allocation, schedule, commercial promise or source file is changed.

Stop conditions

1. Identity, units, authority or snapshot scope cannot be resolved.

2. Any fixture exposure is misstated or any source action is attempted.

3. Real personal/sensitive data appears.

Executed

No

Fixture status

Design only; not run.

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Plan access, model usage, tool runtime and storage costs unknown.

2. Export preparation, evidence cleanup, review and correction effort unmeasured.

3. No native integration, paid service, new account or software installation assumed.

Caveat

No measured time saving, current demand, ROI or price claim. Compare the simpler remedy first.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Verify local privacy and organizational record-handling requirements before any real-data pilot; preserve original currency, business calendars and time zones. No Canadian deployment or compliance claim.