When a supplier says they have capacity, you need evidence that links capacity to your exact SKU, tooling, and timing. This article gives a repeatable working method for asking targeted questions, collecting verifiable artifacts, and building a clear decision record that supports your next sourcing choice.

Ask specifically by SKU and timeframe

General questions like Do you have capacity are easy to answer and easy to overstate. Instead, ask for capacity tied to the exact SKU, the tooling or mold number, and the specific week or month you care about. A supplier may have spare capacity on other lines but not where your product runs. Naming the SKU and timeframe removes ambiguity and makes any evidence you receive directly comparable.

Begin with three targeted questions: Can you produce X units of SKU-12345 between dates A and B? Which production lines, machines, or tool numbers will run that SKU? What lead time and changeover time are you assuming? These questions force the supplier to work from a concrete production plan rather than a general claim of availability.

• Specify SKU, variant, and packaging exactly.
• Give the desired production window and required batch sizes.
• Ask for the line or machine and tooling identifiers that will be used.

Request verifiable, product-specific evidence

Ask for documents and artifacts that tie capacity to your product. Useful items include the supplier's current production schedule showing your SKU, recent production orders for the same SKU, tooling or mold inventory with serial numbers, and machine run-time logs. Time-stamped photos or short unedited videos of your SKU running on the line are practical evidence when provided with a clear date and machine identifier.

Make the request precise and limited. Request copies or exports rather than summaries: a screenshot of the production schedule with visible timestamps, the purchase order numbers of current jobs, the serial number of the mold, and the date and machine ID on any photos. If the supplier resists, ask why each requested item is a problem and whether a controlled alternative can be provided, such as a third-party inspection or a mutually agreed visit.

• Production schedules or Gantt exports with dates and SKU codes
• Recent POs or work orders for the same SKU or tooling number
• Machine or mold IDs plus time-stamped photos or short videos
• Run-time logs or capacity-utilization reports tied to machines

Verify workload and timing with simple cross-checks

Once you have artifacts, run straightforward cross-checks that reveal inconsistencies. Compare the production schedule against the invoice or PO numbers listed for active jobs. Check that the tooling or mold serial number in the photo matches the tooling list provided. If the supplier claims a machine will be free in two weeks, confirm that machine's current run-time log and the end dates of jobs booked on it.

If any document is a screenshot or photo, ask for metadata or an unchanged export where possible. When metadata cannot be provided, ask a simple corroborating question that is hard to fake, such as requesting the current shift supervisor's name and a timestamped photo of the SKU with a handwritten note of the date. These checks add minor friction but increase confidence that the evidence reflects the actual workload and timing.

• Match PO numbers on schedule to invoices or work orders
• Confirm mold or tooling serial numbers across documents and images
• Ask for corroborating, low-cost checks like a dated photo with a handwritten note

Interpret evidence and spot realistic lead times

Translate the supplier's artifacts into a realistic production timeline. If the schedule shows overlapping jobs on the same machine, expect changeover time and potential delays. If the supplier's run-time logs indicate high utilization, their available capacity will be less than the nominal machine capacity. Convert the evidence into concrete numbers: earliest start date, expected batch completion date, and an estimated buffer for changeovers and quality checks.

Look for signals that suggest optimistic answers. Vague or edited documents, mismatched tooling identifiers, missing work order numbers, or an inability to provide time-stamped media are reasons to treat claimed lead times as optimistic. Where evidence is clear but tight, record a conservative lead time for planning purposes and state the assumptions that led to that figure in your decision record.

• Produce a timeline: earliest start, batch completion, buffer for changeovers
• Treat edited or vague evidence as optimistic and add buffer time
• Document assumptions behind any conservative lead time you adopt

Create a visible decision record and plan the next step

Capture every reply, file, and your interpretation in one place. Use a single document or folder that lists the questions you sent, the artifacts received, the cross-checks you performed, and the resulting timeline with assumptions. Include a short conclusion that states whether the supplier can meet your needs, what conditions are required, and what remaining unknowns exist. This record is the working artifact for procurement, production planning, and any later dispute resolution.

From that record, choose your next sourcing action: confirm the order with the supplier and set contractual milestones, commission a third-party inspection or capacity audit, split the order across suppliers, or pause until further evidence arrives. For each action list the trigger that moves you to the next step, such as receipt of a stamped capacity schedule, a paid tooling confirmation, or a third-party verification report. That creates a clear, auditable route from evidence to decision.

• Store all artifacts and your timeline in one accessible document
• State clearly: meet needs, conditions, unknowns
• Define trigger events that justify the next sourcing action

Send one clear request: SKU, dates, and the three specific artifacts you need, and attach a template that asks the supplier to fill in machine and tooling IDs.