Record whether the amount, scope or actual car changed
Keep outgoing and incoming references distinct and ask exactly what the revision proposes. The quote foundations retain a scope change, while the identity review addresses another original configuration. Preserve accepted status, layout, battery and useful-function requirements unless the buyer deliberately changes them. Supplier availability does not establish permission to weaken an essential criterion. If a new proposal needs a concession to become eligible, identify it before comparing the amount. A later year or familiar package wording is not proof of equivalence. This record should explain which fact changed and why it matters, preventing a message framed as a price update from quietly substituting a different battery application, passenger assignment or condition route behind the unchanged family name.
Obtain the replacement’s own status and findings
Ask for original records, available history and relevant current assessment on the incoming unit. The condition-route guide keeps new-car status and used history separate. Similar readings or production labels cannot carry the first inspection across. A supplier can use earlier media as an example of a wanted function, but it cannot establish the replacement’s present response or material condition. Retain declarations, supported records and unassessed areas distinctly. If work has been done, ask which completion evidence belongs to this reference. A battery metric from another car cannot approve the incoming application. Missing essentials should stay unresolved rather than receive automatic equivalent status. The buyer may accept a supported difference deliberately, but that concession should remain in the decision record instead of disappearing under matching exterior photographs or familiar seating wording.
Repeat the practical and system tasks that mattered
Identify which original selection relied on an actual seat position, occupied layout, software method or compatible charging result. The seating review preserves required people and normal positions. The charging foundations retain the installed ports and supported setup. A replaced unit needs relevant evidence answering those tasks, particularly where fitted hardware, battery or software differs or is unconfirmed. The remote evidence review helps request useful demonstrations instead of another generic photo folder. Not every historical conversation needs repeating, but material acceptance evidence must describe the actual incoming car. The requirements can be reused; the outgoing candidate’s findings cannot automatically be reused. Keep personal evaluation and qualified assessment boundaries visible so one working response does not become approval for every unrepresented task on the substitute.
Reconcile the actual revised supplied scope
Record currency, date, vehicle amount, completed work, keys, charging equipment, accessories and delivery boundary on the incoming offer. A lower amount may describe narrower inclusion instead of an equivalent prepared car. The readiness decision keeps promised remedies outside completed evidence. Do not carry a loose-item or preparation commitment across unless it applies explicitly to the replacement. Mark external or pending costs and ask what evidence will close essential work. If a wanted feature is omitted, state the difference before accepting the revised amount. The customer should understand what the incoming finished proposal actually includes and what remains conditional. That clarity prevents a familiar price or similar package from hiding missing equipment, unfinished work or a changed user method that mattered to the original purchase reason.
Give the incoming unit its own acceptance
List requirements fulfilled, conditions still open and deliberate concessions. Preserve the outgoing approval as a historical decision rather than rewriting it to appear as though it always concerned the new vehicle. In a multi-car order, the batch review keeps the revision attached to the affected car unless a common criterion changes. Confirm the final supplied reference and appropriate evidence through the handover stage. Send a ROX 01 update naming the replacement and unanswered items; the enquiry itself does not establish purchase terms. The final recommendation should state why this new candidate is suitable under the buyer’s actual limits. A matching seat label, attractive amount or successful demonstration on another car cannot replace that individual judgement or clear material matters absent from the incoming vehicle’s supported record.
Choose the next action
| Requirement or finding | Buying response |
|---|---|
| Only the amount is revised | Confirm the same reference and actual scope. |
| Another unit is offered | Review its own identity, findings and material tasks. |
| Essential configuration differs | Record the buyer’s deliberate concession before approval. |
Questions buyers ask
Is the same seating label enough to call a replacement equivalent?
No. Confirm battery and equipment applications, useful methods, status, current findings and supplied scope. The first car’s evidence cannot transfer by a shared label.
Must an unaffected batch be entirely restarted after one change?
Not automatically. Keep shared requirements and unaffected records, then review the incoming unit and any common criterion that its differences would alter.
BRING TO YOUR ENQUIRY
Three useful starting points.
- Outgoing and incoming references
- Replacement layout, battery and material tasks
- Revised scope and separate acceptance
Model references: ROX 01 global model information and ROX 01 China configuration. Published equipment varies by market and version. Verify the offered vehicle separately.