Choose the smallest useful work package that closes the actual gap. The following are suggested assessment scopes, not claims that an automated service has already verified your supplier.
| Weak answers | Recommended work package | A useful first deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 or Q15 | Demo Sourcing Brief | One decision, named owners, requirements and acceptance plan |
| Q3–Q4 | Demo Rights Gap Review | One supplier agreement mapped to one domain and a defined title schedule |
| Q2, Q5 or Q6 | Product, promotional or privacy review | A bounded issue list for the appropriate specialist adviser |
| Q7–Q8 | Usable Catalogue and Editorial Gap Review | One catalogue export, priority titles and an explicit unknowns register |
| Q9–Q12 | Mobile Demo Launch Diagnostic | A permitted sample of publisher pages with reproducible test records |
| Q13 | Direct Studio vs Aggregator Cost Model | Comparable twelve-month scenarios without invented market prices |
| Q14 | Supplier Withdrawal Stress Test | A dependency map and rehearsed fallback for the critical pages |
Do not buy a comprehensive supplier search when one permission clarification would resolve the decision. Conversely, do not commission performance testing of a large catalogue before establishing an acceptable permission route for the proposed use.