Share enough to prove.
Reveal only what the process needs.

Supplier reporting works only when both sides can trust the request. Customers need information that supports a defined obligation or decision. Suppliers need to understand why each field is required, how it will be used, who may see it, and whether supporting detail will move beyond the review boundary.

This framework uses an escrow-like operating model: information can be contributed into a governed review process without treating every submission as permission for unrestricted disclosure. It is a process model—not a claim that Dazmii provides legal escrow, independent certification, or a legal determination that information is or is not proprietary.

The nine trust principles

1. Defined purpose. Every request identifies the reporting, validation, operational, or decision need it supports.
2. Minimum necessary. Request the least detail that can satisfy that purpose; separate required, supporting, optional, and unnecessary fields.
3. Field-level context. Sensitivity is assessed by field, granularity, linkage, recipient, and intended use—not by labeling an entire document “a specification.”
4. Participant control. Contributors can provide a value, identify it as unknown or not applicable, flag sensitivity, attach restricted evidence, or request clarification.
5. Purpose-bound visibility. Roles and review paths determine who needs the submitted value, supporting evidence, or only an accepted outcome.
6. Validation before promotion. Supplier contributions remain distinguishable from accepted business records until the accountable reviewer approves them.
7. Traceable decisions. Requests, contributions, corrections, approvals, releases, and changes retain their responsible party, time, source, and version.
8. Permission-aware reuse. A verified value is reused only when permission, applicability, currency, and purpose still align.
9. Defined retention and change. The process specifies how long information and evidence remain available and what causes re-review or withdrawal.

A starting sensitivity classification

The table is an operational conversation starter, not a legal classification. The same field can move between levels based on context and combination with other data.

Working level	Examples	Suggested handling
Purpose-ready	Material category, component count, finished component weight, applicable market, reporting period	Share with the authorized request and review participants when required for the stated purpose.
Controlled	SKU-level mapping, supplier identity, grade, recycled-content evidence, certificates, drawings used only to validate a reported value	Limit visibility by role; release the accepted value or confirmation when full evidence is unnecessary downstream.
Restricted	Formulation, exact layer construction, manufacturing tolerances, process parameters, quote or unit cost, customer-specific volume, capacity, commercial terms	Require explicit need and authorization; consider restricted review, redaction, aggregation, or an attestation instead of general disclosure.

The escrow-like workflow

1. The requester identifies the obligation, decision, required fields, evidence, recipients, and permitted use.
2. The supplier contributes values and classifies exceptions or supporting detail.
3. The workflow validates completeness, formats, units, applicability, and evidence.
4. Authorized reviewers resolve questions without exposing unrelated information.
5. The process releases an accepted value, outcome, or approved evidence according to the defined rule.
6. The record retains its source, version, decision history, permission context, and next review condition.

How the Business Operational Platform supports the framework

BOP turns these principles into operating controls attached to the work. It is not merely a repository for more supplier data.

Trust requirement	How BOP supports it
Purpose and minimum fields	Processes connects the request to a defined step, decision, completion rule, and exception path.
Field ownership and source	Records keeps the participant, item, governed field, evidence, source, and relationship together.
Contribution and review responsibility	Work makes the current action, accountable participant, due state, correction, and approval visible.
Validation and controlled promotion	Data Operations supports collection, validation, normalization, exception handling, and the governed handoff to an approved destination.
Shared guidance	Operational Library keeps request definitions, evidence instructions, classifications, and participant guidance with the method.
Traceability	The operating record connects who requested, contributed, reviewed, corrected, approved, released, or changed information and when.

Participant commitments

Requesters

• Explain why each field is requested and distinguish required data from optional detail.
• Do not use an EPR request as a blanket demand for pricing, formulas, drawings, or unrelated specifications.
• Define recipients, permitted use, retention, review, correction, and release conditions.

Suppliers

• Provide accurate values and evidence appropriate to the defined purpose.
• Flag unknown, not applicable, disputed, or potentially sensitive fields rather than entering misleading substitutes.
• Maintain the source and effective version of contributed information.

Process owners and reviewers

• Resolve scope questions and sensitive-data exceptions before forcing disclosure.
• Approve only information supported by the agreed validation method.
• Reopen affected information when the product, package, source, rule, permission, or evidence changes.

Important limitation

This framework is operational guidance and does not determine legal obligations, trade-secret status, contractual rights, regulatory confidentiality, or whether disclosure is required. Participants should confirm those matters with official program sources and qualified legal or regulatory advisors.