Automotive buyers may be sent a quality-management certificate, a part or drawing reference and a sample approval record. Each is tied to a site, and a trading company can present all three while buying from a different plant. The review lines the documents up against the plant address and the legal entity, and lists what the sources leave unavailable.
We start from the part: your drawing or part number, the material or process involved and the claimed supplier position, whether original-equipment, tier supplier or aftermarket. Then the seller's entity is separated from the production site. A certificate is read for holder, site address and scope wording. Its entry in the certificate body's listing is searched where such a listing is public.
Scope wording that names a product family broader or narrower than your part is reported exactly as written.
We do not assess process capability, run an audit or decide whether a part meets a specification.
Who holds the document, which site it names and what scope wording it uses are read, then set against the issuer's listing where public. Each finding is labelled verified fact, inference, unavailable or client-provided; where the listing and the document differ, the report quotes both.
Compared across quotation, sample documents and the supplier's catalogue. A catalogue entry for a similar but different reference is flagged.
A claim to supply original-equipment makers is the company's own statement. It becomes a verified fact only where a public source confirms it, for instance an exhibitor or customer-listed mention.
Whether the supplier owns the tool or uses a subcontractor is listed as an open point for you. Public sources may not settle it.
Registration details, address changes and related companies are read for continuity with the capabilities claimed.
The aftermarket label and brand claims come first; identity of the maker matters less than whether the brand is the seller's own.
The plant, the certificate scope and the part family are read together, and the report notes the gaps your own audit team would need to close.
The factory-or-trader question is central, together with who the named certificate holder really is.
Research reports what can be established from public and provided sources. It is not a guarantee about a counterparty's future conduct and not legal advice.
Only to the extent its scope wording and the issuer's listing show it. The report quotes the wording and says where it is broader or narrower than your part; whether that is sufficient is your decision.
No. We report what reviewed sources show. Approval remains your decision.
No. We can show what documents the supplier cites for it and who issued them.
No obligation. We read your request and reply with a straight answer.
Tell us what you need to find out and by when. We confirm scope before any work starts.
Request research