# 7. How would you design a fair supplier trial that tests discovery as well as assessment?


**Interview objective:** Prevent supplier-selected demonstrations from becoming the purchasing evidence.

**Put to:** Tyler Heaps, Sarah Rudd and the club’s head of scouting.

**Why it matters to buyers:** Our proposed design treats finding candidates and assessing known candidates as separate tasks. A same-shortlist exercise can test assessment, but by construction it does not establish who would have discovered those players first.

**A strong answer should cover two trial tracks:**

1. **Assessment track:** Give each supplier the same authorised player references, role questions, evidence cut-off and delivery deadline. A five-to-ten-player pilot is a practical starting design, not a statistically representative platform audit.
2. **Discovery track:** Give each supplier the same role and market brief without disclosing the club’s full candidate list. Compare returned candidates against the pre-recorded incumbent baseline under appropriate confidentiality controls.

For both tracks, agree must-pass requirements before access begins. Record onboarding separately from execution, distinguish supplier-assisted output from normal user operation, and ask evaluators to score independently before discussing results.

**Sharp follow-up:** Will you accept credit only for supported findings that are relevant, accessible and new to our baseline—not merely new names or longer reports?

**Request this artefact:** A Same-Shortlist Supplier Trial Kit containing task sheets, evidence requirements, evaluator instructions, an exception log and a discovery supplement. Include negative findings and justified abstentions; do not reward confident answers to unanswerable questions.

Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.