AI procurement identity worksheet

An AI brand name is not a complete purchasing record. It may name the company selling an offer, the application staff will use, or the model producing an answer. It does not, by itself, identify the agreement, delivery provider or account the firm would receive.

Before accepting a quote, make one record for the specific offer and intended account. The aim is practical: identify what is offered, distinguish evidence from assumptions, and give each unanswered question an owner.

This worksheet does not decide whether the AI performs well or is approved for use. It helps an Australian professional-services owner and implementer decide whether to proceed to evaluation, seek answers or hold.

Extract five identities—not one brand

Use the quote as a starting point, then attach supporting documents to these five fields:

• Contracting supplier: the legal entity named in the proposed agreement. Record any difference between the sender’s brand and the proposed contracting party; do not resolve it by guessing.
• Named product: the application or service, including its edition. Copy the offered name rather than substituting a better-known brand.
• Model or model-selection policy: the disclosed identifier for the intended task, or the policy governing selection and changes. “Not disclosed” is an acceptable entry.
• Delivery or hosting provider: the disclosed organisation or organisations operating the service through which work would pass. Do not assume the seller, model developer and hosting provider are identical.
• Actual account and plan: the proposed account, subscription tier and administrator. Record which included controls still need checking in that account.

A product description does not establish the configuration of an account. Likewise, a model name in a demonstration does not establish which model the quoted product will use. Keep those evidence questions separate.

Work through a fictional quote

Suppose a fictional supplier trading as Wattle Ledger sends this quote:

“Wattle Ledger Assist — Team subscription, $240 per month for up to eight users. Includes AI drafting and document search. Setup available after acceptance. Quote Q-EXAMPLE-17, issued 15 September 2026.”

All example details are invented, including the supplier, product, people, price, dates and proposed arrangements. Nothing here establishes real service availability, performance, terms or approval.

The fictional buyer wants to explore internal summary drafting. Priya, the operations owner, asks Alex, the procurement lead, and Sam, the implementer, to assemble the record. They have only the quote excerpt—not an agreement, documentation or access to an account.

Filled procurement record

Field	Recorded answer and gap	Evidence / date checked	Follow-up owner
Intended use	Explore internal summary drafting. Proposed evaluation would use invented material only; no evaluation authorised yet	Buyer’s proposed scope, 16 Sep 2026	Priya — operations
Contracting supplier	Wattle Ledger is the sender’s trading name. Legal contracting entity unknown; request proposed agreement	Q-EXAMPLE-17 excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Alex — procurement
Named product	Wattle Ledger Assist; “Team subscription”. Further edition detail unknown; request matching product documentation	Quote excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Alex
Model / selection policy	Unknown for drafting and document search. Ask whether models are fixed or selected dynamically, and what change information is provided	Not stated in quote excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Sam — implementation
Delivery / hosting provider	Unknown. Request disclosed provider relationships for the offered service	Not stated in quote excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Alex
Actual account / plan	Team, up to eight users, is quoted. Account reference, administrator and included controls unknown; request account setup and plan details	Quote excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Priya
Commercial scope	$240 per month is stated. Currency, tax treatment, term and billing conditions unknown; request complete quotation and terms	Quote excerpt, 16 Sep 2026	Alex
Decision / action	Seek answers. Alex sends consolidated questions; Sam checks model information; Priya reassesses before any acceptance or evaluation	Decision: 16 Sep 2026. Follow-up: 18 Sep 2026	Priya

“Quote states” is not the same as “verified in the intended account”. Here, the team can accurately record the product wording and proposed user allowance, but cannot turn them into confirmed settings.

Each owner has a specific evidence request. Alex need not ask the supplier to “explain its AI”; Alex needs the agreement and documents that identify this offer.

Record an undisclosed or changing model

Do not force a stable model name into the worksheet if none is supplied. Instead, record:

• whether the identifier is disclosed;
• whether selection varies by task or another stated condition;
• what the supplier says about substitutions or changes;
• the source, date and scope of that answer.

For example, a hypothetical response might say that the product selects models automatically but does not disclose identifiers. Record precisely that. Do not translate it into a guessed model family or “latest model”.

An undisclosed identifier is not automatically permission to proceed or a reason to reject every evaluation. The decision owner must decide whether the remaining uncertainty is acceptable for the proposed, bounded evaluation. If a required question cannot be answered, record the limit and consider a hold.

Preserve earlier evidence when answers change. A new plan or selection policy should trigger a review of affected rows, not overwrite the history without explanation.

Choose the next action

The decision field controls what happens next; it is not a general endorsement.

Proceed to a limited evaluation

Choose this when the offer, contracting party and evaluation account are sufficiently identified, and the decision owner has explicitly accepted the remaining unknowns for that evaluation.

Record permitted material, the person authorising the work and its limits. Permission to evaluate with invented material does not authorise purchase, client-document uploads or staff rollout. Use the task-fit evaluation procedure for testing.

Seek answers

Choose this when a specific evidence request could resolve the gaps. Name the question owner, set a follow-up date and state what must wait.

This is the fictional buyer’s position: there is a clear next request, but neither acceptance nor evaluation is authorised. When answers arrive, attach them to the relevant rows. Evidence about another plan does not close a question about this one.

Hold

Choose this when a material gap has no satisfactory resolution path, answers conflict, or the proposed next step would exceed the firm’s authority or agreed information-sharing limits.

State the reason and the evidence needed to reopen the decision. If the fictional supplier required acceptance before identifying the contracting party, Priya could record a hold pending that identification.

Copy this reusable worksheet

Use one copy per offer and intended account. Enter “unknown” rather than leaving an ambiguous blank. Use a document reference or appropriate internal account reference, never a password or access token.

Field	Answer / unknown / exact question	Evidence and check date	Named follow-up owner
Quote reference, version and date
Intended use and evaluation limits
Contracting legal entity
Product and edition
Model identifier or selection/change policy
Delivery/hosting provider relationship
Account reference, plan and administrator
Account controls still to verify
Quoted scope and commercial ambiguities

Complete the action record beneath it:

Decision field	Entry
Proceed to limited evaluation / seek answers / hold
Reason and unresolved material gaps
Permitted next action; actions not authorised
Decision owner and decision date
Follow-up deadline and review trigger

Take the next question to the right guide

Use the companies, products and models parent guide for broader definitions; Australian access verification to check intended access; task-fit evaluation to test the work.

For this record, success is narrower: the offer is identifiable, uncertainty is visible, and someone owns the next action.

Sources and boundaries

The quote and filled record are wholly fictional. The five-field worksheet is an original procurement method, not a claim about any supplier's current terms. The parent guide's historical OpenAI API, ChatGPT and Mistral Large examples show why the named surface and route need identifying; their primary passages were checked 5 October 2026. Your agreement, provider disclosures and intended account remain the evidence needed to fill this record. Use Weights for rights and operating-arrangement checks.