Supplier issue clarification register
Keep each supplier clarification tied to the exact question it must resolve. One reply can answer a product-code question while leaving the relevant period unsupported. A later correction can also invalidate an earlier review decision. This register records those changes without treating every received attachment as closure.
The seven-page pack contains instructions, four reusable blank sheets and two fictional worked pages. The DOCX is editable; the matching PDF is for printing. Both are manually completed records with no formulas, automatic status changes, reminders, scoring or transmissions. They do not authenticate evidence or decide whether a supplier is acceptable.
Download the editable supplier issue clarification register (DOCX).
Download the print supplier issue clarification register (PDF).
Open an issue with a bounded question
Link the register to an existing request ID and version. Record the supplier business identity, relevant site or product, period and intended use. Give each independently answerable question an issue ID. If product identity and period coverage could have different outcomes, use two issue cards linked to the same request.
Describe what you actually observed, with a file version and page, row or section. Then write the unresolved question separately. “The supplied statement names CP44; the order names BX-7” is an observation. “Please establish the relationship for Plant East and the requested quarter” is a clarification. Neither sentence establishes an inaccurate environmental claim or misconduct.
Record what the reviewer would need to see before making a decision. This may be a corrected schedule, an authorised explanation, a defined extract or a specialist review. Leave the route for approval when it is not yet agreed. Do not create a fixed demand for a complete confidential file when the issue concerns one limited fact.
OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance, question 22, explains that concerns about adverse impacts can prompt further assessment before they are fully verified. This register uses that limited distinction between an open question and an established conclusion; it does not implement the wider due-diligence framework.
The register is for organising evidence questions. A concern about immediate harm or another time-critical matter needs the organisation’s appropriate urgent route; do not wait for the routine clarification date. Record the referral reference and owner without copying unnecessary sensitive details into a broadly accessible register.
Separate the exchange from the review
The issue card has two status fields. Exchange status describes whether a question is being prepared, has been sent, has received a reply or is awaiting further information. Review disposition says whether the issue is unreviewed, unresolved, supported for a stated use, resolved by changing the requested use, or reopened. A received reply does not populate the second field automatically.
Use one response-assessment sheet for each relevant reply version. Preserve the supplier’s explanation as an attributed statement. List the actual evidence received and its locator separately, then record the check performed, result and remaining limitation. If one email addresses several issues, link it to each card rather than counting it as several independent confirmations.
A missing response, unavailable record and restricted sharing route call for different next actions. Record the reason supplied and who can decide the next step. These are information-handling states, not supplier performance grades. A request withdrawn because its purpose changed must retain that reason; it must not be relabelled as evidence successfully supplied.
Replay a partial reply and a later correction
Every name, date, record and decision in this example is invented. Request RQ17 v1 concerns the source references for a packaging declaration for buyer product BX-7, supplied from Plant East during April to June 2026. The buyer is checking document identity and applicability before any content claim is used. No recycled-content percentage, product conformity or supplier rating is determined.
The initial declaration D0 v1 names supplier product CP44 and the January-to-March period. It does not connect CP44 to BX-7. The reviewer opens I1 for the product-code relationship at Plant East and I2 for the declaration’s applicability to April–June. The two cards share a request, but each has its own evidence question and decision history.
Reply R1, received on 6 October, includes mapping note M1 v1. Its full fictional statement maps BX-7 to CP44 at Plant East for April–June. The reply also says that the requested declaration-period evidence is still being retrieved. Under this teaching case’s agreed desk-review conditions, reviewer Tara records I1 as supported for the limited identity note, based on that supplier record. I2 remains unresolved.
Internal draft N1 now says that M1 v1 provides the product-code link; it expressly leaves period applicability open and is not released externally. The register does not infer that the old declaration is valid for the new quarter. It also does not describe M1 as independently authenticated merely because the reviewer accepted it for this bounded record check.
On 8 October, correction R2 supplies M1 v2 and explicitly supersedes v1: the mapping was for Plant West, not Plant East. There is no replacement East mapping. Tara reopens I1, records the reason and identifies N1 as dependent on the withdrawn mapping. N1 is marked superseded and not for use; a revised internal note states that both requested questions remain unresolved.
I2 never closed, so it does not need to be reopened. The next request separates the two missing items again: an East-specific product-code link and evidence addressing the requested declaration period. The correction is retained beside the earlier record. Nothing in this sequence proves deliberate misstatement or settles the substantive packaging claim.
Use a decision history rather than overwriting the past
The final blank sheet records each disposition event with its date, reviewer, evidence versions, exact permitted use and dependent records. When evidence changes, add an event and identify the earlier decision affected. Preserve the previous entry so that another reviewer can explain why a once-supported working note is no longer usable.
Closing an issue means only that the named reviewer has recorded a bounded disposition. If the request is narrowed, write what was removed and who approved that change. An unresolved original question does not disappear because the new purpose no longer needs it. If information must be shared externally, use the organisation’s separate authorisation and approved channel.
Use the worked pages to test your copy. Try treating the product mapping as period evidence: I2 must stay open. Mark the whole request closed because R1 arrived: the decision cannot be supported. Add the explicit supersession in R2 without reopening I1 or reviewing N1: the history no longer describes the evidence on which the current note depends. These checks are manual exercises, not functions embedded in the files.
Fit the register into the existing workflow
Use the supplier evidence request checklist to prepare the original request and the supplier response tracker to manage the collection round. Use this register when a returned record creates a specific clarification, and link the issue IDs back to that tracker. Keep the actual source documents in controlled storage, with references that authorised reviewers can locate.
The supplier issue guide helps phrase the observation and uncertainty fairly. This download supplies repeatable issue, reply and decision records, including the dependency check needed after a correction. Remove the fictional pages before using a copy for live work, and share only the information approved for the intended recipients.
Source checked 15 October 2026: OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, question 22, printed page 65. © OECD 2018.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory forms, diagram and fictional records. This is a clarification-recording aid, not a certification decision, legal opinion, investigation protocol or independent assurance. It creates no authority to contact a supplier, disclose a file, make an allegation or approve a product. No source organisation endorses it.
Comments