{"id":3166,"date":"2026-09-24T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T01:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/?p=3166"},"modified":"2026-09-24T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T01:00:00","slug":"quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/supplier-verification\/quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier\/","title":{"rendered":"Quality Acceptance Matrix for Multi-Supplier Assemblies"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 id=\"quality-acceptance-matrix-for-multi-supplier-assemblies\">Quality Acceptance Matrix for Multi-Supplier Assemblies<\/h1>\n<p>An assembly can pass a final check and still leave everyone arguing <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/about-us\/\">acerca de<\/a> the wrong question: which supplied lot was used, who approved it, and what evidence supports that answer? When several suppliers feed one build, a general inspection instruction is rarely enough.<\/p>\n<p>A <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/how-we-work\/\">calidad<\/a> acceptance matrix multi <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/\">proveedor<\/a><\/strong> is a controlled table that links each part or material to its approved configuration, risk-based acceptance evidence, incoming control, traceability, segregation, escalation, and release responsibility. It is not a universal AQL chart, a substitute for the product specification, or a way to transfer legal and regulatory duties through a spreadsheet.<\/p>\n<p>The matrix makes the decision path visible. A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> process should be controlled before routine receipts begin.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"table-of-contents\">Table of contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#what-is-a-quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier\">What is a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#why-does-a-multi-supplier-assembly-need-a-matrix\">Why does a multi-supplier assembly need a matrix?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-fields-belong-in-the-matrix\">What fields belong in the matrix?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-should-criticality-shape-acceptance-controls\">How should criticality shape acceptance controls?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-should-parts-be-identified-and-segregated\">How should parts be identified and segregated?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-should-teams-handle-a-mixed-supplier-defect\">How should teams handle a mixed-supplier defect?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-are-the-limits-of-an-acceptance-matrix\">What are the limits of an acceptance matrix?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently asked questions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"what-is-a-quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier\">What is a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier?<\/h2>\n<p>A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> is a controlled acceptance map that identifies what evidence is needed for each supplied item, who checks it, how its identity is preserved, what happens on a discrepancy, and who can release it for use.<\/p>\n<p>FDA&#8217;s quality-agreement guidance, written for contract drug manufacturing and explicitly nonbinding, says quality agreements can describe materials or <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/services\/\">servicios<\/a>, quality specifications, and communication mechanisms. It also notes that roles may be documented in charts, matrices, narratives, or a combination, provided the parties&#8217; responsibilities are clear.[^1]<\/p>\n<p>Use the matrix as a buyer&#8217;s operating document. The applicable contract, drawing, BOM, approved sample, test method, regulatory requirement, and product-specific quality plan still control.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Matrix element<\/th>\n<th>What it <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/faqs\/\">answers<\/a><\/th>\n<th>What it does not decide by itself<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Part identity<\/td>\n<td>Which part, revision, and approved source are in scope?<\/td>\n<td>Whether the part works in the finished assembly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Acceptance evidence<\/td>\n<td>Which records, inspection, or test inputs are needed?<\/td>\n<td>A universal sample size or tolerance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Incoming control<\/td>\n<td>Who checks what before release?<\/td>\n<td>Root cause of a future field issue<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Traceability<\/td>\n<td>How is the supplier lot or identity linked to the build?<\/td>\n<td>Metrological traceability of a measurement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Segregation<\/td>\n<td>How are lots or statuses kept apart?<\/td>\n<td>Financial responsibility for a defect<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Escalation and release<\/td>\n<td>Who investigates and who authorizes a decision?<\/td>\n<td>A replacement for a contract&#8217;s dispute process<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> should make unknowns visible rather than hiding them inside a final-inspection result.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"why-does-a-multi-supplier-assembly-need-a-matrix\">Why does a multi-supplier assembly need a matrix?<\/h2>\n<p>Different parts create different failure modes. A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> prevents those differences from disappearing inside one generic receiving rule. A cosmetic insert, an electrical safety part, a custom molding, and a chemical coating may all appear on one assembly, but they should not automatically receive the same evidence, inspection depth, or release route.<\/p>\n<p>The comparison below shows why a shared receiving checklist often falls short.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Approach<\/th>\n<th>What it can do<\/th>\n<th>What it cannot do<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>One generic incoming checklist<\/td>\n<td>Confirms basic count, visible condition, and paperwork for all receipts<\/td>\n<td>Define item-specific evidence, segregation, or release rules<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Supplier-specific instruction only<\/td>\n<td>Tells one supplier what it is expected to provide<\/td>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/contact-us\/\">Connect<\/a> dependencies across the assembly or set a common escalation route<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Final assembly inspection only<\/td>\n<td>Finds some finished-product issues<\/td>\n<td>Reliably identify the contributing supplier lot after materials are mixed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/td>\n<td>Connects each input to an acceptance and traceability decision<\/td>\n<td>Replace engineering validation or detailed product specifications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> also helps a buyer ask the right question during supplier onboarding: what must be controlled before this item can enter the assembly, and how will the item be identified later?<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-fields-belong-in-the-matrix\">What fields belong in the matrix?<\/h2>\n<p>The matrix needs enough detail to guide a real receiving decision, but not so much that it becomes an unreadable copy of every drawing. The <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> should point to controlled documents rather than repeat them. Start with a controlled part list and create one row per relevant part, material, component family, or defined supply condition.<\/p>\n<p>The following template is illustrative. Populate it with the applicable specification and risk review rather than treating its fields as universal requirements.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Campo<\/th>\n<th>Example of the question it records<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Assembly and part identifier<\/td>\n<td>Which build, part number, revision, and configuration are covered?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Supplier and approved source status<\/td>\n<td>Which source is approved for this item and under what conditions?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Function and risk rationale<\/td>\n<td>What could happen if the supplied item is wrong, mixed, or untraceable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Required evidence<\/td>\n<td>Which certificate, report, material declaration, sample record, or lot record is required?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Acceptance reference<\/td>\n<td>Which drawing, BOM, method, approved sample, or contractual requirement applies?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Incoming action<\/td>\n<td>Is the action document review, identity confirmation, dimensional check, functional test, hold, or another defined activity?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Sampling or test plan<\/td>\n<td>Which approved plan governs selection, measurement, and acceptance?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Identification and segregation<\/td>\n<td>How is supplier, lot, status, and location preserved until use?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Nonconformance route<\/td>\n<td>Who records, contains, investigates, and decides the disposition?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Release authority<\/td>\n<td>Who may release the material for assembly or a controlled deviation?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>FDA recommends that quality agreements specify roles, communication, disagreement resolution, and how deviations are reported, investigated, documented, and resolved.[^1] The <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> can point to those controlled processes without trying to duplicate their full text.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-should-criticality-shape-acceptance-controls\">How should criticality shape acceptance controls?<\/h2>\n<p>Criticality should come from the product&#8217;s actual function, failure consequence, detectability, supplier history, process capability, regulatory context, and technical evidence. Use this assessment to set each <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> row&#8217;s decision path. It should not be inferred solely from unit <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/get-a-quote\/\">price<\/a> or from a supplier&#8217;s sales claim.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Risk question<\/th>\n<th>Matrix consequence to define<\/th>\n<th>Avoid this assumption<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Could an incorrect item create a safety, compliance, or mission risk?<\/td>\n<td>Define the applicable technical evidence, hold point, and release authority<\/td>\n<td>All parts can follow the same receiving check<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Is the item custom, newly changed, or difficult to replace?<\/td>\n<td>Link the revision, change-control notice, and verification evidence<\/td>\n<td>Previous lots prove a changed design is acceptable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Can the item be verified after assembly?<\/td>\n<td>Strengthen pre-use identity and record controls when later verification is limited<\/td>\n<td>Final inspection will always catch it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Does the item affect a measured characteristic?<\/td>\n<td>Name the approved method, result record, uncertainty need, and acceptance reference<\/td>\n<td>A traceable instrument alone makes the result fit for use<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Has the supplier or process changed?<\/td>\n<td>Require the agreed change review and requalification evidence<\/td>\n<td>A familiar supplier eliminates review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>NIST defines metrological traceability as a documented unbroken chain of calibrations connecting a measurement result to a specified reference, with each calibration contributing to uncertainty. NIST also cautions that traceability by itself does not guarantee fitness for purpose.[^2] In a <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong>, distinguish a measurement&#8217;s traceability from the product lot&#8217;s traceability.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-should-parts-be-identified-and-segregated\">How should parts be identified and segregated?<\/h2>\n<p>Traceability in an assembly is practical only if identity survives receiving, storage, issue, use, rework, and nonconformance handling. That is why a <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> needs clear identity and status controls. Decide the necessary level before materials arrive. Some items may need supplier-lot identity through the finished assembly; others may need only a receipt record tied to a defined batch or order.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Control point<\/th>\n<th>Record or control<\/th>\n<th>Why it matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Receiving<\/td>\n<td>Supplier, PO, part, revision, quantity, lot or batch <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/articles\/\">informaci\u00f3n<\/a> when required<\/td>\n<td>Creates the first link between the receipt and its source<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Status control<\/td>\n<td>Accepted, on hold, rejected, rework, or deviation status<\/td>\n<td>Prevents unreviewed material from entering use<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Physical or digital segregation<\/td>\n<td>Labeled locations, containers, system status, or other defined controls<\/td>\n<td>Reduces accidental mixing of lots and statuses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Material issue<\/td>\n<td>Link to work order, build, batch, or serial record as defined<\/td>\n<td>Connects an input to the actual assembly population<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Rework and substitution<\/td>\n<td>Controlled approval and updated record<\/td>\n<td>Stops an unrecorded alternative from appearing as the original item<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Retention<\/td>\n<td>Defined record owner and retention rule<\/td>\n<td>Supports later investigation without inventing a history<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> should state the level of identity needed. Do not demand lot tracking for every item by habit, and do not omit it where a later containment decision depends on it.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-should-teams-handle-a-mixed-supplier-defect\">How should teams handle a mixed-supplier defect?<\/h2>\n<p>Contain first, then investigate. Once parts from several suppliers have been combined, an immediate blame decision can destroy evidence or cause a team to release affected material too early.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Investigation step<\/th>\n<th>Decision purpose<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Define the observed defect and affected population<\/td>\n<td>Separates facts from a general quality concern<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Place relevant receipts, work in process, and finished assemblies on the appropriate hold<\/td>\n<td>Prevents further use while scope is assessed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Preserve units, packaging, photos, test data, and production records<\/td>\n<td>Maintains evidence linked to the condition and lot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Reconstruct the as-built or batch history<\/td>\n<td>Identifies which supplier lots and process steps were actually involved<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Review against the controlled acceptance references<\/td>\n<td>Keeps conclusions tied to agreed requirements<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Agree any additional inspection or test method before execution<\/td>\n<td>Avoids <a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/case-studies\/\">resultados<\/a> that do not answer the dispute question<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Record provisional disposition and final release decision<\/td>\n<td>Makes risk acceptance, rework, return, or rejection traceable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Issue corrective-action and commercial recovery work through the appropriate process<\/td>\n<td>Separates technical evidence from contractual remedies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>El <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> should identify the technical owner for containment and disposition, but it should not declare financial liability. Root cause, responsibility, warranty, and recovery depend on evidence and the parties&#8217; contract.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-are-the-limits-of-an-acceptance-matrix\">What are the limits of an acceptance matrix?<\/h2>\n<p>A matrix is not a quality system by itself. It cannot validate a product design, assign regulatory accountability, guarantee a supplier&#8217;s process, replace calibrated methods, or resolve an ambiguous contract.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Limitation<\/th>\n<th>Practical response<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>No approved specification exists<\/td>\n<td>Hold the acceptance rule until engineering or the buyer defines a controlled reference<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Supplier roles conflict with the contract<\/td>\n<td>Resolve the agreement and written responsibility boundaries before routine release<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>A measurement method is unsuitable<\/td>\n<td>Use a qualified method and stated acceptance criteria rather than forcing an irrelevant result<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Lots were mixed without records<\/td>\n<td>Treat scope as uncertain and use a documented containment approach<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Criticality is guessed<\/td>\n<td>Involve relevant engineering, quality, safety, and regulatory roles in the risk review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>A final check passes<\/td>\n<td>Keep input traceability because a pass does not prove which supplier controlled every hidden characteristic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>FDA&#8217;s guidance says parties should define responsibilities and communication processes for quality-related outsourced activities, monitor contractor performance, and monitor incoming materials from approved sources under an agreed supply chain.[^1] Those are useful design principles for a <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong>, even though the FDA document&#8217;s formal scope is contract drug manufacturing.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"what-is-a-quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier_1\">What is a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier?<\/h3>\n<p>A quality acceptance matrix multi supplier is a controlled table that links each supplied item to its acceptance evidence, incoming control, traceability, nonconformance process, and release owner.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"is-a-quality-acceptance-matrix-multi-supplier-the-same-as-an-aql-plan\">Is a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier the same as an AQL plan?<\/h3>\n<p>No. It can point to an approved sampling plan where one applies, but it also covers supplier identity, evidence, segregation, escalation, and release.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"should-every-component-have-the-same-incoming-inspection\">Should every component have the same incoming inspection?<\/h3>\n<p>No. Controls should reflect the item&#8217;s function, consequence of failure, ability to verify it later, supplier conditions, and applicable requirements.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"does-part-traceability-mean-measurement-traceability\">Does part traceability mean measurement traceability?<\/h3>\n<p>No. Product or lot traceability links a material to source and use. Metrological traceability relates a measurement result to a specified reference through documented calibrations.[^2]<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"can-a-supplier-certificate-replace-inspection\">Can a supplier certificate replace inspection?<\/h3>\n<p>Only if the controlled specification, risk review, and agreement allow it. A certificate should still be checked for issuer, scope, revision, and link to the received material.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-should-happen-if-two-supplier-lots-are-mixed\">What should happen if two supplier lots are mixed?<\/h3>\n<p>Stop further uncontrolled use, preserve available records, assess the affected population, and follow the documented investigation and disposition route.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"who-should-approve-a-deviation\">Who should approve a deviation?<\/h3>\n<p>The matrix should name the authorized technical or quality release role and point to the controlled deviation process. Authority depends on the product, contract, and applicable requirements.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-often-should-the-matrix-be-reviewed\">How often should the matrix be reviewed?<\/h3>\n<p>Review it when the product, specification, supplier, process, risk, performance, or contractual requirement changes, and under the organization&#8217;s controlled document process.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"can-one-matrix-cover-a-whole-product-family\">Can one matrix cover a whole product family?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, when the covered configurations, parts, sources, and rules are genuinely common. Split the matrix when differences would hide a meaningful acceptance or traceability decision.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"does-a-matrix-decide-which-supplier-caused-a-defect\">Does a matrix decide which supplier caused a defect?<\/h3>\n<p>No. It preserves the evidence and responsibilities needed to investigate. Root cause and contractual responsibility require the facts, technical review, and agreement terms.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-is-the-practical-rule-for-multi-supplier-acceptance\">What is the practical rule for multi-supplier acceptance?<\/h2>\n<p>The practical rule is to define acceptance before the materials are mixed. A <strong>quality acceptance matrix multi supplier<\/strong> gives each receipt a visible path from source and evidence to segregation, use, investigation, and release.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"references\">Referencias<\/h2>\n<p>[^1]: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/media\/86193\/download\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">FDA, &#8220;Contract Manufacturing Arrangements for Drugs: Quality Agreements&#8221;<\/a><\/p>\n<p>[^2]: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nist.gov\/metrology\/metrological-traceability\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">NIST, &#8220;Metrological Traceability: Frequently Asked Questions and NIST Policy&#8221;<\/a><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"related-reading\">Related reading<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/supplier-quality-agreement-checklist\/\">Supplier quality agreement checklist<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/incoming-inspection-plan-buyers\/\">Incoming inspection plan for buyers<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/batch-traceability-requirements\/\">Batch traceability requirements<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Build a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier teams can use for acceptance evidence, traceability, segregation, defects, and release.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_internal_links_processed":["1"],"_uag_page_assets":["a:9:{s:3:\"css\";s:263:\".uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-desktop) !important}@media (max-width: 976px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-tablet) !important}}@media (max-width: 767px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-mobile) !important}}\n\";s:2:\"js\";s:0:\"\";s:18:\"current_block_list\";a:15:{i:0;s:11:\"core\/search\";i:1;s:10:\"core\/group\";i:2;s:12:\"core\/heading\";i:3;s:17:\"core\/latest-posts\";i:4;s:20:\"core\/latest-comments\";i:5;s:13:\"core\/archives\";i:6;s:15:\"core\/categories\";i:8;s:25:\"greenshift-blocks\/heading\";i:9;s:22:\"greenshift-blocks\/text\";i:10;s:14:\"core\/paragraph\";i:12;s:18:\"core\/legacy-widget\";i:13;s:17:\"core\/social-links\";i:15;s:16:\"core\/social-link\";i:16;s:21:\"trp\/language-switcher\";i:17;s:9:\"core\/html\";}s:8:\"uag_flag\";b:0;s:11:\"uag_version\";s:10:\"1791277210\";s:6:\"gfonts\";a:0:{}s:10:\"gfonts_url\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"gfonts_files\";a:0:{}s:14:\"uag_faq_layout\";b:0;}"]},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supplier-verification"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"trp-custom-language-flag":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Build a quality acceptance matrix multi supplier teams can use for acceptance evidence, traceability, segregation, defects, and release.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3166"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3377,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166\/revisions\/3377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3166"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}