Lines, units, or money in the denominator
How partial receipts add up
Whether an approved substitute counts
On time kept apart from in full
Whether closing a short line lifts the rate
The two rates disagree because they do not count the same thing
A supplier completeness rate and a buyer’s spoken “done” often are not the same measure. The buyer may treat a closed line, a supplier reply, or an agreed substitute as complete. The warehouse asks whether enough of the ordered material actually arrived. Arriving on time and arriving in full are different questions as well. Folding them into one percentage makes each side think the other cannot add. Retail replenishment, an ecommerce warehouse purchase, and a factory material receipt all produce this gap.
Write the formula first: which lines or which quantities are the denominator, which receipts may enter the numerator, whether a substitute counts, how partial receipts accumulate, what happens to over-delivery, and whether a short line that the buyer closed remains in the denominator. Without that formula the two percentages are not right or wrong; they are different definitions. The quantities below are an example of those definitions, not a supplier scorecard and not an industry target.
Do not divide receipt documents by order lines
A purchase line is a commitment: material, quantity, and a due window. A receipt line is one arrival. One commitment can arrive in several parts. Dividing the number of receipt documents by the number of order lines turns three partial deliveries into a distorted high rate. Keeping only the last receipt drops quantity that already arrived. Add accepted quantity on the same purchase line, then compare that sum with the ordered quantity.
The US Census Bureau’s manufacturers’ survey defines new orders, unfilled orders, and shipments separately. Shipments are net selling value, free on board plant, after discounts and allowances. A new order is a communication of an intention to buy. That survey is not a retail receiving formula, but it shows why an order and a shipment are not one number. Kimball’s grain article asks what one row means before anyone divides. A receipt row is one arrival; an order row is one commitment. dbt requires a ratio metric to name its numerator and denominator, so a completeness rate has to say whether it is counting lines, units, or money.
Substitutes, timing, quantity, and partial receipts stay apart
A substitute counts toward the original line only when an approval record exists. A verbal acceptance that leaves the original material on the order makes the warehouse and the buyer disagree. An unapproved substitute is a different receipt, and the original line stays short. If the substitute has a different price or a different usage, being full in units is not the same as being full in money, and having enough to run production is not the same as fulfilling the purchase contract.
On time asks whether the receipt falls inside the agreed window. In full asks whether cumulative accepted quantity reaches the order quantity or an allowed tolerance. A partial receipt can be on time and still not in full. Over-delivery should not push a rate above complete in a way that hides a short line elsewhere; show the overage on its own. Whether an early arrival counts as on time belongs in the window before the month closes, not in a late adjustment. The inventories standard is about measuring inventory the entity already holds. Quantity still sitting on an open order is not inventory merely because a buyer feels it has mostly arrived.
Two calculations, and when each one fits
The first calculation is line completion. A line is complete when cumulative accepted quantity, including approved substitutes, meets the tolerance and the line was not cancelled. Each line has the same weight. This fits a contract scored line by line, such as a store replenishment list where every style has to arrive. It does not fit a materials order where one line is a sample and another is the bulk input, because the sample then weighs as much as the shortage that stops production.
The second calculation is a unit fill rate or a value fill rate: accepted quantity divided by ordered quantity, or the same comparison weighted by amount. Unit fill answers whether the pieces are enough, and cheap high-volume items dominate it. Value fill makes an expensive shortage visible and lets cheap bulk fade. Neither replaces line completion when the question is whether every style on a store list arrived. Keep on-time as its own measure. Combine on-time and in-full into one numerator only when the contract defines success as both, and still publish the split. ASCM’s public SCOR page presents supply-chain work as separable processes, so receiving performance should trace back to sourcing and delivery rather than remain one unexplained percentage.
Where the buyer figure usually diverges
After a buyer closes a short line, a rate whose denominator keeps only open lines will rise, while the warehouse unit-fill rate does not. The buyer may score timeliness on the supplier promise date, and the warehouse on the put-away date. Inspection and an appointment gap sit between those dates. Both are rule differences, not only keying mistakes. Quantity still in inspection should not count as complete.
Units cause another split: the order is in cases and the receipt is in pieces, and without a conversion one side looks full while the other looks badly short. Cancelled lines, free lines, and replacement after a return change the denominator the buyer calls “live orders.” When explaining the gap, list the effect of closure, substitution, unit conversion, inspection, and the time window separately. Do not label the whole gap as bad data until those rule differences are exhausted.
Counterexamples
Counterexample one: one line arrives in three receipts and is counted as three completed lines. Counterexample two: the supplier ships a substitute, the buyer agrees verbally, the system still scores the original material as short, and the buyer reports the line complete. Counterexample three: goods arrive on the agreed day at half the quantity, and on-time and in-full become one green mark. Counterexample four: closing the short line removes it from the denominator and the rate improves. Counterexample five: a return never reverses received quantity, so the rate still says the order was filled. Counterexample six: over-delivery on one line averages away a shortage on another.
Each of these can look like a tidy rate. Acceptance looks at whether the order, the receipts, the closure, and the return still reconcile, not at whether the rate sits close to what the buyer said. Turning a supplier ranking straight into a penalty or a volume shift treats a definition gap as a performance gap. If the ranking reverses under the other calculation, stop automatic penalties until the formula and the tolerance are written down.
Acceptance checklist
Replay a single full receipt, several partial receipts, a short line that was later closed, an approved substitute, an unapproved substitute, an overage, a late arrival, a cancellation, a return, a case-to-piece mismatch, and a receipt that is waiting in inspection. Line completion, unit fill, value fill, and on-time should each be recalculable. Partial receipts add only accepted quantity. Inspection does not count before release. Closing a short line must not silently change the denominator of a month already discussed.
Buyer and warehouse should explain one order’s gap as closure, substitution, units, inspection, or the time window. After a change of metric version, tolerance, window, or substitute policy, the historical month has to replay under the old rule. Compare suppliers only under one formula and one window. The test is passed when the gap between the two figures can be itemized. It is not passed by forcing the two percentages to match.
Where BI0.AI fits, and where it does not
Choose one supplier and one kind of order. Align purchase lines with receipt lines and show line completion, unit fill, value fill, and on-time together. Widen the set of suppliers only after closures, substitutes, units, and the time window explain the gap. Automatic penalties, automatic closure of orders, and automatic changes to purchase share are outside this article. Whether orders, receipts, substitute approvals, and returns come from one set of documents has to be checked on the project.
BI0.AI can be considered a candidate entry point for small and mid-sized firms that want operating analysis fed by the data they collect. This article does not show that the current release already performs the allocation, in-transit states, or receipt definitions discussed here. Connectors, cost definitions, and any automatic action still have to be verified for the specific project.
Public references
Take the next step with BI0.AI
Talk through a real business scenario and see how governed AI BI can fit your team.
Explore BI0.AI