Carrier review · Worked example
Plan, tender, and uplift variance across three departures
Between plan and uplift sit tender, scanning, build-up, and loading adjustments, so the 2.2-tonne gap has to be rebuilt on a timeline.
Start with five quantities
Across 3 departures, the plan is 12.0 tonnes, actual tender is 10.6 tonnes and uplift is 9.8 tonnes. A further 0.5 tonnes arrive late, while 0.3 tonnes are removed during loading.
The 2.2-tonne plan-to-uplift gap includes freight that never tendered, late freight and a loading adjustment. It is not assigned to one carrier label.
Rebuild the timeline by departure
Booking cutoff, tender, scan completion, build-up completion and loading close are compared for each departure. A cause is only recorded when the corresponding timestamp or loading note exists.
Missing scan evidence or an undocumented offload reason remains an open item with an owner.
What to observe on the next departure
The next review starts with two executable checkpoints: whether a tender commitment exists before booking cutoff, and whether late and offload records are complete before loading close. Each item has an owner and update time.
Only a repeated gap across departures moves handling windows, booking policy, or capacity commitments into a focused analysis. A single departure is not rewritten as a trend.
What the review can and cannot decide
The output lists confirmed gaps, missing data, the next departure checkpoints and ownership. Rate and capacity decisions sit in a separate record.
No carrier score or later improvement is invented for this example.