Can the second source close the build gap?
Bramble Devices needs plain cover parts for Friday’s build.
The question
The quality owner can approve a new source only after two production-intent lots of the current part revision each show zero out-of-window measurements in 20 samples.
| Units | |
|---|---|
| Build needs | 1200 |
| Approved supplier confirmed | 750 |
| Candidate supplier quoted | 500 |
The candidate quote is subject to qualification and delivery.
“Tell the planner which quantity to commit and what the quality owner needs.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What supply can you commit now?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Count 1,250 parts because both suppliers gave quantities
Tempting, but it misses something. The second source still needs approval and confirmed delivery.
Commit 750 and keep the 500 as a conditional option
The strong move. This exposes the real shortfall while the qualification proceeds.
Say the 500 would close only part of the gap
Tempting, but it misses something. The conditional quantity exceeds the 450-part gap.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would commit the 750 approved parts and show a 450-part gap. If the candidate is approved and delivers 500, the build would have 50 parts spare.”
Why it works: The quote supplies a conditional quantity. The approved order supplies the committed quantity.
Step 2: What does the summary need to prove?
The supplier reports 40 passing samples out of 40 across two groups. The source record for its second group of 20 is missing.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Approve the candidate based on the total pass count
Tempting, but it misses something. The missing record prevents a check of the lot and part revision.
Use the available group twice because it came from one supplier
Tempting, but it misses something. The approval rule needs two production-intent lots.
Ask for each group’s source record before counting it
The strong move. That lets the quality owner verify the required evidence for both lots.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would check the sample IDs, production lot and part revision for both groups. A 40 of 40 summary without the source record for its second group does not establish the two-lot requirement.”
Why it works: The rule applies to two identified production-intent lots of the current revision.
Step 3: Can you count the second source now?
The first group is production-intent lot B1 and passed 20 of 20. The second group used prototype stock. The verified production-intent lot B2 has 18 passes in 20 samples.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Leave the second source out of committed supply
The strong move. B2 misses the rule. The planner still has only 750 approved parts.
Approve on the 95% combined rate
Tempting, but it misses something. The rule requires zero misses in each lot.
Substitute the prototype group because it all passed
Tempting, but it misses something. The case requires production-intent lots for the current revision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“B1 passed 20 of 20. The verified B2 lot passed 18 of 20. That is 38 of 40 overall, or 95%, but B2 has two misses and fails the per-lot rule. I would leave the 500 unapproved and keep the 450-part gap in the plan.”
Why it works: The corrected sample origin changes the applicable evidence. A combined rate does not satisfy a zero-miss rule for each lot.
Step 4: What do you ask each owner to do?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Give each owner the evidence and the decision they control
The strong move. The planner can revise the build while quality investigates the lot result.
Ask the planner to approve the candidate to protect the date
Tempting, but it misses something. The case assigns qualification to the quality owner.
Keep the original build date and remove the sourcing issue from the report
Tempting, but it misses something. The gap remains until approved supply is available.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would give the quality owner the failed B2 record and corrected sample IDs. I would ask the production planner to revise Friday’s build around 750 confirmed parts or find approved supply for the 450-part gap.”
Why it works: The quality owner decides qualification. The planner needs the current approved volume and a clear next action.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Keep the second source out of committed supply and show a 450-part gap.
- Because
- B2 has two out-of-window results. The case requires zero in each of two production-intent lots.
- What would change it
- New qualifying lot evidence, owner approval and confirmed delivery would support a revised plan.
Common traps
- Trace the samples to the current production lot.
- Keep quoted parts separate from approved supply.
Check your answer
- I showed the committed gap.
- I checked the lot records.
- I used the per-lot rule.
- I named the two owners.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026