Fictional project email
Vendor A / Vendor B — access-management evidence still needed
Team,
For this fictional internal-service evaluation, a specific access-management capability is mandatory. The technical acceptance criteria have not been supplied. Our original comparison used a green check for A and a red cross for B because documentation was found for A but not B. That overstates what we know.
Vendor A is conditional: the supplied source documents the capability on the enterprise plan, but availability on our proposed purchase plan still needs confirmation. The proposed plan name, document title, URL, publication date and verification date are not supplied. We have no hands-on trial or plan-specific written commitment.
Vendor B is unknown from the supplied evidence. No documentation found is not evidence that the capability is unavailable. The proposed plan, applicable documentation and source date are missing; no trial or written answer is supplied.
Neither option has yet satisfied the mandatory requirement for the actual purchase scenario. No selection is approved and there is no supported winner or score. We also lack quotes, list prices, seat count, currency, billing period, usage assumptions, add-ons, implementation costs and tax terms. Unknown costs are not zero; comparable total cost is not established.
Next: agree testable acceptance criteria and common purchase assumptions. Request written plan-specific answers from both vendors using the same criteria and obtain comparable current pricing. Update answers, plans, limitations and source dates before reviewing the choice. Owners and deadlines are not assigned. Keep procurement approvals, contracts and security review in their established processes.
Prepared September 20, 2026, a fictional preparation date—not a source verification date. Authored as the evaluating team, not either vendor; no commercial relationship supplied. This is a static decision aid, not live pricing, a warranty or an automated purchase.