DecisioQ Auto Parts Developer Integration Manual

How software developers should incorporate DecisioQ into Auto Parts retail, wholesale, distribution, warehouse, eCommerce, and service-support systems.

Auto Parts Industry Edition

Contents

1. Purpose and Scope

2. Auto Parts Reference Architecture

3. Core Decision Templates for Auto Parts

4. Data Mapping: Auto Parts Entities to DecisioQ Inputs

5. API Integration Pattern

6. Implementation Walkthrough: Supplier Selection

7. Alternate Part and Fitment Recommendations

8. Inventory Replenishment and Allocation

9. Returns, Warranty, and Core Handling

10. eCommerce and Marketplace Integration

11. Security, Auditability, and Governance

12. Performance and Reliability

13. Testing Strategy

14. Deployment Checklist

15. Recommended First Implementation Roadmap

1. Purpose and Scope

This manual explains how software developers in the Auto Parts industry should embed DecisioQ into operational software systems. It is written for teams building or maintaining parts retail platforms, wholesale distribution systems, warehouse management applications, supplier networks, dealership parts modules, repair-shop parts procurement systems, and online parts marketplaces.

DecisioQ should be used where a business process requires transparent, repeatable, weighted, multi-criteria decision-making. The goal is not to replace the ERP, POS, WMS, catalog, or eCommerce platform. The goal is to give those systems a reusable decision layer that can rank alternatives, explain recommendations, and preserve a full audit trail.

Best-fit Auto Parts decisions

• Which supplier should fulfill a part order when price, lead time, fill rate, warranty policy, and shipping cost all matter?
• Which substitute part should be recommended when the requested SKU is unavailable?
• Which inventory items should be replenished, transferred, discounted, returned to supplier, or discontinued?
• Which warranty, return, or core claim should be approved, denied, escalated, or inspected?
• Which customer order should receive scarce inventory during shortage conditions?
• Which shipping carrier or warehouse should be selected for an order based on SLA, cost, distance, and stock availability?

2. Auto Parts Reference Architecture

A typical integration places DecisioQ behind the application service layer. Business systems collect operational data, transform that data into decision criteria, send a decision request to DecisioQ, receive ranked alternatives with scores and rationale, then persist the result in the system of record.

Recommended logical flow

Customer, branch, vehicle, SKU, supplier, inventory, price, and delivery context
|
v
Auto Parts application service normalizes operational data
|
v
DecisioQ decision request with templateId, criteria, alternatives, and metadata
|
v
Ranked recommendation with score, rationale, selected alternative, and auditId
|
v
POS / ERP / WMS / eCommerce applies result, records override if any, and stores audit link

3. Core Decision Templates for Auto Parts

4. Data Mapping: Auto Parts Entities to DecisioQ Inputs

The most important implementation step is translating operational records into normalized decision inputs. Developers should avoid sending raw database tables directly. Instead, create a mapping layer that converts Auto Parts entities into decision criteria with clear names, values, units, and scoring direction.

5. API Integration Pattern

Use a service adapter inside the Auto Parts platform. The adapter hides DecisioQ-specific transport details from POS, ERP, WMS, and web applications. It should validate payloads, enforce tenant/user context, call DecisioQ, normalize results, and publish decision outcomes to logs or event streams.

Request payload pattern

POST /api/decisions/evaluate
Authorization: Bearer {access_token}
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "templateCode": "AUTO_PARTS_SUPPLIER_SELECTION",
  "criteria": [
    { "name": "unitCost", "weight": 25, "direction": "lowerIsBetter" },
    { "name": "leadTimeHours", "weight": 20, "direction": "lowerIsBetter" },
    { "name": "supplierFillRate", "weight": 20, "direction": "higherIsBetter" },
    { "name": "defectRate", "weight": 15, "direction": "lowerIsBetter" },
    { "name": "freightCost", "weight": 10, "direction": "lowerIsBetter" },
    { "name": "warrantySupport", "weight": 10, "direction": "higherIsBetter" }
  ],
  "alternatives": [
    { "id": "SUP-A", "values": { "unitCost": 36.40, "leadTimeHours": 24, "supplierFillRate": 97, "defectRate": 1.2, "freightCost": 18.00, "warrantySupport": 92 } },
    { "id": "SUP-B", "values": { "unitCost": 34.10, "leadTimeHours": 72, "supplierFillRate": 89, "defectRate": 2.4, "freightCost": 12.00, "warrantySupport": 80 } },
    { "id": "WHSE-TRANSFER", "values": { "unitCost": 35.25, "leadTimeHours": 36, "supplierFillRate": 100, "defectRate": 0.8, "freightCost": 22.00, "warrantySupport": 88 } }
  ],
  "context": {
    "correlationId": "optional",
    "attributes": {}
  }
}

Response payload pattern

{
  "decisionId": "DQ-20260625-000847",
  "templateCode": "AUTO_PARTS_SUPPLIER_SELECTION",
  "selectedAlternativeId": "SUP-A",
  "recommendation": "Select Supplier A",
  "rankedAlternatives": [
    { "id": "SUP-A", "score": 91.4, "rank": 1, "rationale": "Best balance of cost, speed, fill rate, and warranty support." },
    { "id": "WHSE-TRANSFER", "score": 87.8, "rank": 2, "rationale": "Strong availability but higher freight cost." },
    { "id": "SUP-B", "score": 74.6, "rank": 3, "rationale": "Lowest unit cost but weaker lead time and fill rate." }
  ],
  "audit": {
    "correlationId": "PO-REQ-104922",
    "templateVersion": "4.2",
    "evaluatedAtUtc": "2026-06-25T21:14:03Z"
  },
  "context": {
    "correlationId": "optional",
    "attributes": {}
  }
}

6. Implementation Walkthrough: Supplier Selection

1. Detect that a purchase requirement can be fulfilled by multiple suppliers or by an internal warehouse transfer.
2. Query supplier availability, cost, contract terms, lead time, freight, defect rates, and warranty performance.
3. Normalize all measures into DecisioQ criteria using consistent units such as hours, dollars, percentages, and pass/fail indicators.
4. Call the DecisioQ evaluation endpoint with the supplier alternatives.
5. Display the ranked recommendation to the buyer, planner, or automated purchase workflow.
6. Store the decisionId, selected alternative, score, criteria values, and any user override in the purchasing database.
7. Use historical outcomes to refine weights, supplier scorecards, and replenishment policies.

C# adapter example

public sealed class DecisioQAutoPartsClient
{
    private readonly HttpClient _http;

    public DecisioQAutoPartsClient(HttpClient http)
    {
        _http = http;
    }

    public async Task<DecisionResult> EvaluateSupplierSelectionAsync(
        SupplierSelectionRequest request,
        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
    {
        using var response = await _http.PostAsJsonAsync(
            "/api/decisions/evaluate",
            request,
            cancellationToken);

        response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();

        var result = await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<DecisionResult>(
            cancellationToken: cancellationToken);

        return result ?? throw new InvalidOperationException("DecisioQ returned an empty response.");
    }
}

7. Alternate Part and Fitment Recommendations

Auto Parts systems often need to recommend substitutes when a requested part is unavailable, too expensive, delayed, or not ideal for the customer segment. DecisioQ should receive only fitment-valid alternatives. Fitment validation should remain in the catalog or PIM layer, while DecisioQ ranks valid alternatives by business and customer criteria.

Recommended UI pattern:
1. Show the top recommended part first.
2. Show score and concise rationale, not just a black-box ranking.
3. Provide comparison rows for price, availability, warranty, quality tier, and fitment confidence.
4. Allow authorized users to override and require an override reason.
5. Store the override reason with the DecisioQ decisionId.

8. Inventory Replenishment and Allocation

For distributors and multi-location retailers, DecisioQ can evaluate replenishment and allocation choices by combining demand, inventory, cost, service level, aging, and supplier constraints. The decision should run on a schedule, on threshold events, or in response to planner action.

9. Returns, Warranty, and Core Handling

Returns and warranty decisions should be explainable because they affect customer satisfaction, supplier recovery, inventory accuracy, and fraud exposure. DecisioQ should be integrated into the RMA workflow at the point where the system has enough context to recommend an outcome.

10. eCommerce and Marketplace Integration

Online Auto Parts stores can use DecisioQ at several points in the buying journey. Developers should keep decision calls lightweight and cache static criteria such as brand tier, fitment group, and warranty class. Real-time calls should be reserved for availability, pricing, delivery, and customer-specific decisions.

• Search results: rank compatible products by fitment confidence, availability, price, margin, rating, return risk, and delivery promise.
• Cart: recommend substitutions when an item is backordered or unavailable at the shipping location.
• Checkout: choose warehouse, carrier, drop ship, pickup branch, or split shipment based on cost and promised delivery.
• Post-purchase: decide whether to recommend installation services, extended warranty, maintenance bundle, or future replenishment reminder.
• Returns portal: automatically route low-risk returns and escalate ambiguous or high-value claims.

11. Security, Auditability, and Governance

12. Performance and Reliability

• Use synchronous DecisioQ calls for user-facing decisions that must be returned immediately, such as substitute recommendations at the counter or checkout shipping decisions.
• Use asynchronous queues for batch replenishment, supplier scorecard refresh, obsolete inventory analysis, and nightly pricing reviews.
• Cache supplier scorecards, brand tiers, fitment metadata, and static policy parameters, but do not cache real-time inventory or price without a strict expiry.
• Design fallback rules for temporary DecisioQ unavailability, such as using the last approved template snapshot or routing to manual review.
• Monitor latency, error rate, decision volume, override rate, and recommendation acceptance rate by template and branch.
• Use idempotency keys or correlation IDs for purchase, return, and warranty workflows to avoid duplicate decisions after retries.

13. Testing Strategy

14. Deployment Checklist

• Create DecisioQ templates for supplier selection, substitute recommendation, replenishment, allocation, RMA, warranty, core return, and pricing exception workflows.
• Build an integration adapter that centralizes authentication, retries, schema validation, logging, and error handling.
• Map Auto Parts master data to normalized criteria and document every criterion name, unit, direction, and weight owner.
• Configure role-based access and override policies before enabling production decisions.
• Run a pilot with one branch, one product category, or one decision template before enterprise rollout.
• Compare DecisioQ recommendations against historical human decisions and actual business outcomes.
• Train users to read recommendation rationale and record override reasons.
• Enable monitoring dashboards for decision volume, acceptance rate, override rate, and business impact.

15. Recommended First Implementation Roadmap

Appendix A - Example Decision Template Definitions

Template: AUTO_PARTS_ALTERNATE_PART_RECOMMENDATION
Purpose: Rank compatible substitute parts when the requested SKU is unavailable or a better option exists.
Alternatives: Valid fitment-compatible SKUs only.
Criteria:
fitmentConfidence weight 30 higherIsBetter
availabilityScore weight 20 higherIsBetter
customerPrice weight 15 lowerIsBetter
grossMargin weight 10 higherIsBetter
warrantyRisk weight 10 lowerIsBetter
brandPreference weight 10 higherIsBetter
installComplexity weight 5 lowerIsBetter
Required audit metadata:
customerType, branchId, requestedSku, vehicleYMME, userId, sourceSystem

Template: AUTO_PARTS_WARRANTY_RMA_DECISION
Purpose: Recommend whether to approve, deny, inspect, replace, or escalate a claim.
Alternatives: Approve, replace, inspect, supplier claim, partial credit, deny.
Criteria:
policyEligibility weight 25 higherIsBetter
proofOfPurchase weight 15 higherIsBetter
daysSinceSale weight 10 lowerIsBetter
conditionScore weight 15 higherIsBetter
testFailureEvidence weight 15 higherIsBetter
customerValue weight 10 higherIsBetter
fraudRisk weight 10 lowerIsBetter

Appendix B - Developer Best Practices

• Keep DecisioQ criteria stable and business-readable. Avoid cryptic database column names in templates.
• Separate compatibility validation from decision ranking. Catalog/PIM should decide what fits; DecisioQ should rank valid choices.
• Do not hard-code weights in application code. Store weights in DecisioQ templates so business owners can govern them.
• Capture enough context to explain a recommendation later, especially for warranty, pricing, allocation, and purchasing decisions.
• Treat DecisioQ as a decision layer, not as a replacement for transaction processing or master data management.
• Use correlation IDs consistently across POS, ERP, WMS, eCommerce, and DecisioQ logs.
• Design for human override, but make overrides visible, reviewable, and measurable.

End of Manual