Supplier Risk Scoring

Supplier due diligence involves reading through financial summaries, compliance notes, and operational reports, then applying consistent scoring criteria across multiple risk dimensions. Done manually, this is slow and inconsistent. Different reviewers weigh the same evidence differently. This template automates that process — the model applies the same criteria on every call and returns a structured result your procurement workflow can act on directly.

The agent receives three free-text assessment blocks — financial, compliance, and operational — alongside structured supplier metadata. It evaluates all three dimensions simultaneously and returns a composite risk score, five boolean risk flags, and a recommended procurement action with a written justification.

If a dimension cannot be assessed because the input data is insufficient, the affected scores and flags return null rather than a guess. Any downstream rule receiving a null can detect it explicitly and raise an error or route to manual review rather than processing an incomplete result silently.

Problem: All risk scores return null.
Solution: This is expected when one or more assessment fields contain no usable evidence. The rule is designed to return null rather than estimate — check that all three assessment narratives contain actual findings before resubmitting.

Problem: Individual flags return null while scores are populated.
Solution: A null flag means the specific condition could not be evaluated from the provided data. For example, sanctions_exposure returns null when sanctions status is not mentioned in the compliance notes. Add the missing information to the relevant assessment field.

Problem: recommended_action returns null but scores are present.
Solution: This occurs when the risk profile is ambiguous enough that no action can be confidently recommended. Route the record to manual review and use the dimensional scores and flags to guide the reviewer.