> For clean Markdown of any page, append .md to the page URL.
> For a complete documentation index, see https://tieback.io/docs/llms.txt.
> For AI client integration (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.), connect to the MCP server at https://tieback.io/docs/_mcp/server.

# Supplier Evidence Register

> A vendor neutral register for tracking supplier-held information, the evidence expected behind it, its state, its validity and the action required to close the gaps.

This is a practical tool, not a canonical Knowledge article and not a
[tieback framework](/docs/knowledge-base/frameworks/overview). It applies two existing frameworks
rather than restating them: the
[DPP Evidence Lifecycle (TBF-034)](/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-manage-evidence-for-digital-product-passports)
for evidence kinds, evidence states and the register field set, and the
[Supplier DPP Readiness Model (TBF-032)](/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-prepare-suppliers-for-digital-product-passports)
for supplier segmentation. The teaching lives in those articles.

The register is vendor neutral. Nothing you enter leaves your browser, and no tieback product is
required. It tracks the evidence, not the file: the document stays wherever you already keep it.

## Purpose

Supplier data and supplier evidence are different asks, and they are routinely confused. A request
for a recycled content percentage is a request for a value; a request for what stands behind that
value is a request for evidence. Programmes that track only the first discover the second late,
usually when someone asks which claims are supported, by what, issued by whom, and whether any of it
is still valid.

This register is the working list for that second question. It answers, per requirement:

* what supplier-held information the passport depends on,
* who is expected to provide it, and at what supplier segment,
* what evidence is expected, and what has actually arrived,
* who issued it and with what standing,
* whether it has been accepted and is still current,
* who internally owns closing the gap, and what happens next.

It is not a supplier portal, not a procurement system and not a compliance determination. It is a
structured evidence-management worksheet.

## Who It Is For

Anyone accountable for supplier-held passport content: procurement and supplier management, product
data, sustainability, quality, and compliance and regulatory affairs. It is written to be usable by
a small manufacturer with a spreadsheet and a folder of supplier emails, and to scale conceptually
to an enterprise programme running portals, PLM, ERP, QMS and an evidence repository.

## When To Use It

Run it after the
[Passport Data Origin Worksheet](/docs/knowledge-base/templates/passport-data-origin-worksheet).
The worksheet establishes which values are supplier-held and who is authoritative for them; this
register is what those rows become once you have to obtain and maintain the evidence behind them.

It is also the right tool before supplier outreach, during onboarding, at each evidence refresh,
when evidence is rejected or disputed, and when passport data is being prepared for assurance or
review.

## Instructions

## What The Register Tracks

## Evidence States

## The Register

## How To Interpret The Result

The counts describe the register, not the product and not the passport. Read the shape rather
than the total.

* **Gaps concentrated in one supplier:** a supplier engagement problem. Escalate
  through the commercial relationship rather than by resending the same request.
* **Gaps concentrated in one requirement across many suppliers:** the ask is
  usually wrong. If nobody can answer it, the expectation, the format or the scope needs
  rewriting before the next round of outreach.
* **Many rows received but few accepted:** evidence is arriving and nobody is
  deciding. This is a review capacity problem, and it quietly converts into risk at publication.
* **Accepted rows with no reference:** the acceptance cannot be traced back to
  anything. This is the condition that fails an assurance review most often.
* **Supplier assertion behind a regulated claim:** not necessarily wrong, but know
  that it is what you are relying on, and decide whether the claim justifies stronger evidence.
* **Validity not established:** you cannot say whether what you hold still supports
  the claim. Treat this as a gap in waiting rather than an administrative detail.

A register with no gaps means the evidence position is recorded and current. It does not mean
the underlying values are correct, and it does not establish compliance, which is determined
against the applicable legal instrument and the product specific measure covering your product.

## Using It At SME Scale

Nothing here requires a system. A small manufacturer can run this register with the tool on this
page, a shared folder and an email trail: the reference field can be a filename, the issuer can be a
person, and the repository can be a folder. What matters is that the expectation is written down,
that acceptance is a decision someone makes and records, and that expiry is noticed before a
customer or an authority notices it. Do not wait for a portal, a PLM instance or an evidence
platform before starting; the register is what tells you whether you would ever need one.

## Using It At Enterprise Scale

At enterprise scale the same rows are usually populated from supplier portals, PLM, ERP, QMS,
sustainability systems and a document or evidence repository, with segments driving how much control
each supplier population gets. The register does not replace those systems; it is the governed index
across them, which is exactly the role TBF-034 gives an evidence register. If your systems already
hold this, use the register to find where they disagree, and to expose the requirements no system
currently owns.

## Related Frameworks And Knowledge

> **Note**
>
> Worked example: see this tool used end to end, alongside the other two Templates, in [Example 01: From DPP Readiness to Defensible Supplier Evidence](/docs/knowledge-base/examples/readiness-to-evidence-manufacturer-example).

## Limitations And Regulatory Caution

## Related Articles

* [Passport Data Origin Worksheet](/docs/knowledge-base/templates/passport-data-origin-worksheet)
* [DPP Readiness Assessment](/docs/knowledge-base/templates/dpp-readiness-assessment)
* [From DPP Readiness to Defensible Supplier Evidence: A Worked Manufacturer Example](/docs/knowledge-base/examples/readiness-to-evidence-manufacturer-example)
* [DPP Governance: Who Owns What?](/docs/knowledge-base/compliance-frameworks/dpp-governance-who-owns-what)
* [Product Data](/docs/knowledge-base/glossary/product-data)
* [What Data Goes in a Digital Product Passport, and Where Does It Come From?](/docs/knowledge-base/digital-product-passports/what-data-goes-in-a-digital-product-passport)
* [How Will Digital Product Passports Change Product Compliance?](/docs/knowledge-base/standards-and-technology/how-will-digital-product-passports-change-product-compliance)
* [Sustainability Data](/docs/knowledge-base/glossary/sustainability-data)

## References

* Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation), Chapter III on the
  Digital Product Passport: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1781/oj](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1781/oj)
* tieback Knowledge, "How to Manage Evidence for Digital Product Passports" (TBF-034, the evidence
  lifecycle this register applies):
  [https://tieback.io/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-manage-evidence-for-digital-product-passports](https://tieback.io/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-manage-evidence-for-digital-product-passports)
* tieback Knowledge, "How to Prepare Suppliers for Digital Product Passports" (TBF-032):
  [https://tieback.io/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-prepare-suppliers-for-digital-product-passports](https://tieback.io/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/how-to-prepare-suppliers-for-digital-product-passports)

## About This Article

About This Article

<dl>
  <dt>
    Last Reviewed
  </dt>

  <dd>
    2026-08-10
  </dd>

  <dt>
    Next Scheduled Review
  </dt>

  <dd>
    2027-08-10
  </dd>

  <dt>
    Article Version
  </dt>

  <dd>
    1.0
  </dd>
</dl>

tieback Knowledge is a continuously maintained reference library covering Digital Product
Passports, product traceability, product compliance and related regulations. Articles are
reviewed regularly as legislation, standards and implementation guidance evolve.

## Page Metadata

| Field         | Value                                                       |
| ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| Asset type    | Template / practical tool                                   |
| Published     | 2026-08-10                                                  |
| Last Reviewed | 2026-08-10                                                  |
| Version       | 1.0                                                         |
| Reading Time  | 8 min                                                       |
| Author        | tieback Editorial Team                                      |
| Category      | Templates                                                   |
| Tags          | suppliers, evidence, governance, validation, implementation |

## Related Docs

* [Templates](/docs/knowledge-base/templates/overview)
* [tieback Framework Library](/docs/knowledge-base/frameworks/overview)
* [Implementation](/docs/knowledge-base/implementation/overview)
* [Enterprise Systems & Data Architecture](/docs/knowledge-base/enterprise-systems-and-data-architecture/overview)
* [Governance & Assurance](/docs/knowledge-base/compliance-frameworks/overview)
* [Example 01: From DPP Readiness to Defensible Supplier Evidence](/docs/knowledge-base/examples/readiness-to-evidence-manufacturer-example)