Arc Skills / Requirements

Review supplier compliance claims against evidence

Arc Skills compares a supplier’s claim with requirement clauses and the reports actually supplied. It returns supported, partial, contradicted, or unassessable findings with a precise evidence request.

Use this skill

Use Arc Skills to review the supplied supplier compliance claim against its evidence.

Inputs:
- Customer requirement and revision with exact clauses and limits
- Supplier claim, response date, offered variant, and deviations
- Test or analysis reports with article, build, conditions, and result locators

Return a claim-evidence matrix with verdict and a precise supplier clarification request.
Reserve failure for credible contrary evidence. Mark untested conditions unsupported rather than guessing

Set up the toolkit · Read the skill instructions

What you provide and what you get

Inputs and outputs
What you have	How it is used	What you get
Customer requirement	Defines range and operating condition	Clause-by-clause evidence target
Supplier offer	Fixes product variant and firmware	Applicability comparison
Reports and deviations	Shows tested points and exceptions	Evidence verdict and request

A 24 V test cannot prove an 18–32 V range

Illustrative engineering example.

The supplier marks its response Compliant. The only report shows operation at nominal 24 V on firmware 1.1; the offer specifies firmware 1.2.

R-20 rev B: Controller shall operate from 18–32 VDC.
Supplier response: “Compliant,” Controller C2 firmware 1.2.
V-8 rev A: C2 firmware 1.1 operated at 24 VDC; no end-point tests or delta analysis.

A 24 V test cannot prove an 18–32 V range — illustrative output
Claim element	Evidence actually supplied	Verdict / request
18–32 VDC operation	V-8 covers 24 V only	Partial support; request end-point data or justified range analysis.
Offered firmware 1.2	V-8 used firmware 1.1	Applicability unestablished; request controlled firmware delta.
Full “Compliant” response	No evidence for whole range on offered build	Unverified claim; ask supplier to revise status or provide evidence.

The nominal test is useful but cannot establish both extremes. There is no contrary endpoint result, so the honest finding is insufficient evidence, not a failed product.

The firmware difference is a separate identity-chain question. A documented change analysis may show it is irrelevant to input power; until then, the report cannot be silently transferred to the offered configuration.

Match claim, condition, and article

Split the customer requirement into exact limits and modes.
Preserve the supplier’s claim and offered configuration verbatim.
Inspect report article, firmware, test conditions, and result locators.
Ask for the smallest missing report, analysis, or corrected exception statement.

Questions about this task

Is a brochure enough evidence?

It may identify a product feature, but it does not demonstrate the exact 18–32 VDC obligation on the offered build.

Does missing evidence prove noncompliance?

No. It means the claim is not yet demonstrated; a credible contrary result would support a failure finding.

Sources and further reading

NASA Systems Engineering Handbook: Lifecycle and requirements guidance; the example decisions are illustrative.