Decision Summary
Business question: Which supplier should be recommended for select parts supplier in the selected Auto Parts context?
Outcome: a ranked recommendation that supports, but does not replace, accountable business judgment.
| Criterion ID | Meaning | Direction | Weight | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
unit_cost | Unit Cost | minimize | 20.0% | Currency |
delivery_time | Delivery Duration | minimize | 15.0% | Days |
supplier_reliability_score | Supplier Reliability Score | maximize | 20.0% | Score |
quality_rating | Quality Score | maximize | 20.0% | Score |
fill_rate | Fill Rate | maximize | 15.0% | Percentage |
payment_terms_score | Payment Terms Score | maximize | 10.0% | Score |
5-Minute Quick Path
Goal
Run Select Parts Supplier with a complete candidate set.
Recommended mode
Business Data Mode when you have ordinary operational records.
You provide
Candidate business records matching the published input schema.
DecisioQ returns
A ranked recommendation with score evidence.
Data Preparation Guide
Business Data uses domain-shaped records and the published mapping profile. Prepared Criteria bypasses mapping and supplies canonical criterion IDs directly. Never send both modes in one request.
| Business source | Canonical target |
|---|---|
option.financial.unitCost | unit_cost |
option.procurement.deliveryDuration | delivery_time |
option.assessment.supplierReliabilityScore | supplier_reliability_score |
option.assessment.qualityScore | quality_rating |
option.procurement.fillRate | fill_rate |
option.assessment.paymentTermsScore | payment_terms_score |
Business Data Mode
This complete illustrative request comes from certification case valid-generated-business-payload. It demonstrates shape and mapping, not production data.
{
"decisionId": "AUTO-PART-007",
"mappingProfileId": "auto-parts-select-parts-supplier-auto-part-007",
"businessData": {
"requestContext": {
"sourceSystem": "automotive-profile-factory",
"correlationId": "factory-auto-part-007"
},
"partsOrders": [
{
"optionId": "PART-007-01",
"name": "Select Parts Supplier Option 1",
"financial": {
"unitCost": 60000.0
},
"procurement": {
"deliveryDuration": 251.85,
"fillRate": 27.0
},
"assessment": {
"supplierReliabilityScore": 23.0,
"qualityScore": 33.0,
"paymentTermsScore": 80.0
}
},
{
"optionId": "PART-007-02",
"name": "Select Parts Supplier Option 2",
"financial": {
"unitCost": 147500.0
},
"procurement": {
"deliveryDuration": 259.15,
"fillRate": 67.0
},
"assessment": {
"supplierReliabilityScore": 16.0,
"qualityScore": 56.0,
"paymentTermsScore": 55.0
}
}
]
}
}Prepared Criteria Mode
This complete request is the published expected-canonical artifact. Values and names remain illustrative.
{
"decisionId": "AUTO-PART-007",
"mappingProfileId": "auto-parts-select-parts-supplier-auto-part-007",
"mappingProfileVersion": "1.0.0",
"profileId": "balanced",
"scenarioId": "standard",
"algorithm": "TOPSIS",
"weightStrategy": "Expert",
"runSensitivity": false,
"requestContext": {
"correlationId": "factory-auto-part-007"
},
"options": [
{
"optionId": "PART-007-01",
"name": "Select Parts Supplier Option 1",
"values": {
"unit_cost": 60000.0,
"delivery_time": 251.85,
"supplier_reliability_score": 23.0,
"quality_rating": 33.0,
"fill_rate": 27.0,
"payment_terms_score": 80.0
}
},
{
"optionId": "PART-007-02",
"name": "Select Parts Supplier Option 2",
"values": {
"unit_cost": 147500.0,
"delivery_time": 259.15,
"supplier_reliability_score": 16.0,
"quality_rating": 56.0,
"fill_rate": 67.0,
"payment_terms_score": 55.0
}
}
]
}Understanding the Result
The score is a relative TOPSIS closeness coefficient within this candidate set; it is not a probability. The winner below was computed by DecisioQ.DecisionEngine.Services.TopsisEngine in-process from the published canonical request.
| Rank | Option | ID | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Select Parts Supplier Option 1 | PART-007-01 | 0.572949 |
| 2 | Select Parts Supplier Option 2 | PART-007-02 | 0.427051 |
Winner: PART-007-01. Download verified local result
Profiles and Scenarios
Profiles: balanced, cost_focused, service_level, risk_control
Scenarios: standard, stockout_risk, budget_constraint, supplier_disruption
Profiles change business priorities; scenarios represent operating context. Re-run the same candidate set and compare winner, score gap, and criterion contribution before adopting a change.
Sensitivity Analysis
Vary the highest-weight criteria in small increments and record whether the winner changes. A stable winner across reasonable weight changes is stronger evidence than a large score in one configuration.
Scenario Analysis
Use a published scenario only when it represents the intended operating context: standard, stockout_risk, budget_constraint, supplier_disruption. Compare the winner, ranking gap, and trade-offs with the baseline run.
Integration Examples and Next Steps
Use the API guide and client kit to transport either request mode. This example intentionally does not duplicate authentication, routing, Key Vault, usage accounting, or operational logging guidance.
Review the batch validation report, replace illustrative data with governed business data, and add domain acceptance thresholds before rollout.
