Does your AI supplier evidence cover your actual use?
Match supplier evidence to the product, configuration and decision in front of your team.
A folder of documents is a starting point
A supplier can provide credible and current documentation while leaving a deployment question unanswered. A report may cover a different service, version, configuration or workflow from the one your team intends to use.
The fictional review in this video shows why receiving evidence and deciding that evidence is adequate are separate steps. This is an illustration, not a report of a real supplier test or customer deployment.
Check scope and expose gaps
For each important claim, record who issued the evidence, what product and configuration it covers, its date and its limitations. Connect it to the actual people, information and actions in the proposed use.
Make unanswered questions visible. Assign an owner and describe the evidence that would resolve each material gap. The volume of documents does not establish that a particular prerequisite has been met.
Record a bounded decision
State what may proceed, which uses or actions remain restricted and what must happen before those restrictions can change. Preserve the reasoning so another reviewer can understand the decision later.
Anvaylo’s AI Vendor Review Toolkit brings an executive guide and working records together to help procurement, technology and governance teams carry out that review.
Read the video transcript
Harborview, a fictional support team, is reviewing ReplyAssist from Sample Vendor A. It only drafts replies. An employee verifies and sends each one. Automatic sending, refunds and account changes stay out of scope.
The vendor sends five records: a no-training claim, a retention setting, a security report, a test summary, and a screen showing automatic sending turned off. On a checklist, every item now looks answered.
But seen is not the same as adequate. The claim leaves out support access and logs. Thirty-day retention leaves backups and deletion unclear. The security report excludes the AI service. And 100 simple test messages, in one language, miss the real workflow. Only the sending restriction is actually observed.
Four material gaps stay open, so real customer data waits. Only a separately approved synthetic evaluation goes ahead. Each gap gets an owner and a closure test, and a named decision-maker reviews the evidence before anything expands.
Make the supplier decision from evidence that covers your intended use. Anvaylo's toolkit helps your team identify gaps, assign owners and record the conditions for proceeding.
Download this toolkit, and explore others like it, from the Resources page at anvaylo.com/resources.
Explore the related executive guide and companion working records.
Explore the toolkit →