A buyer sends equipment specifications through WhatsApp. Sales finds what appears to be the same product code in the catalog, but the buyer's file requires a different operating rating. Sending the usual quote would be quick. It could also create a commitment the supplier cannot meet.
When the buyer's specification and the approved catalog disagree, hold the compliance claim and final quote until the discrepancy has an owner and a documented decision. The goal is not to slow down sales. It is to avoid treating an unresolved engineering question as a confirmed commercial offer.
Identify the exact discrepancy
Missing information is different from conflicting information. A missing voltage requires clarification. A request for 380 V when the approved datasheet says 220 V is a conflict. A third possibility is that the buyer is referencing a newer product revision not yet reflected in the sales catalog.
Record the item code, the buyer document version and date, the disputed requirement, the approved catalog version, and the buyer's response deadline. Replace vague notes such as "specifications unclear" with an exact statement like "section 4 rating differs from datasheet revision 2." That gives the reviewer something actionable.
Separate commercial ownership from technical approval
Sales owns the conversation and the promised update. The product owner or engineer determines whether the requested specification can be met and whether an alternative is viable. The authorized commercial approver confirms pricing and terms after the technical decision. A quick internal message from someone without the relevant authority is not a compliance sign-off.
Microsoft's engineering change management guidance illustrates how organizations record changes, assess effects on open transactions, and approve changes before updating product information. This is an international operational example, not an Egyptian legal requirement or a claimed Mr. AI feature.
What to tell the buyer
A useful reply is: "We found a difference between the operating rating in your specification and the approved product sheet we currently hold. Our technical team is checking whether this refers to a different revision or requires a modification. We'll then confirm a compliant option or explain the alternative, with an update after review."
If the RFQ deadline is close, identify the outstanding points rather than saying the product is compliant. If you propose a substitute, explain the relevant differences and request explicit buyer acceptance. Silence should not be treated as approval.
Illustrative example: two cooling-unit variants
A distributor receives an RFQ for a cooling unit with a particular width. Its catalog lists a narrower unit under a similar trade name, while an attachment points to an industrial variant. Sales pauses the final quote, requests the full model number, and has engineering review both options. If the industrial variant is unavailable, the team says so rather than pricing the narrower unit as an exact match.
This is a hypothetical operating example, not a customer case or a demonstration of automated technical verification.
Keep a decision record that survives handovers
Store the approved revision, disputed requirement, technical decision, approver, buyer acceptance of any substitute, and quote validity date. A later revised file should trigger a new review rather than silently overwriting the earlier agreement. See the related guides on RFQ attachment intake and custom products outside the catalog.
Review how often quotes are revised because of mismatched specifications, how long disputes take to resolve, and whether substitutes received explicit approval. Faster quotes are not an improvement if they require costly corrections.
Where Mr. AI fits
Mr. AI can help teams respond from approved business knowledge, keep conversation context, follow up, and hand complex cases to people. It should not be presented as an engineering compliance checker or an autonomous quote approver. Those decisions remain with the business. You can test the inquiry and handoff experience using non-sensitive sample cases.
