Procurement policy checks with Jev
Requesters write “need this vendor, they already know us.” Catalog, bid thresholds, and vendor master still own the buy. Jev scores policy-fit of the justification you paste. It does not raise POs or pick winners.
This unofficial page is the policy checks slice of the procurement path decisions pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to procurement path decisions policy checks. Primary search language: Procurement Jev policy checks. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Catalog vs bid vs exception as typed questions + policy excerpts — not a clone of a procurement-workflow SaaS sitemap.
Procurement use-case context
A policy check is a typed question whose instructions + criteria are your rules about the purchase justification. Jev scores compliance; the intake orchestrator enforces. This is not a certification, and it is not a photocopy of a rival “policy engine” page — we keep rules atomic and ANDed in code.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: procurement workflows.
Policy Checks inputs
Put policy text and the artifact in structured state (never hope the model memorized last quarter’s PDF):
{
"req": { "id": "pr-77", "text": "Only Acme can integrate with our badge system by Friday." },
"policy": { "sole_source": "Sole-source needs a named alternative and a date risk, not brand preference." },
"bands": { "amount_band": "25-50k", "category": "security_hardware" }
}Name req.text, policy.sole_source, bands.category.
Decision signals and actions
| Id | Rule | Enforce |
|---|---|---|
bid_floor |
Amount ≥ BID_FLOOR → bid path regardless of Noul | code |
vendor_master |
Unknown vendor id → hold for master-data, not Jev guess | ERP |
ethics |
Gift / conflict language → compliance queue | Noul you add + code |
Typical primitives on the same request:
| Id | Type | Job |
|---|---|---|
path |
Choice | catalog / bid / sole_source / reject / other |
justification_quality |
Score | preference-only → documented constraint |
policy_ok |
Noul | Justification meets policy.sole_source? |
violations = [name for name, ans in policy_nouls.items() if ans.noul >= T_VIOLATION]
if violations:
return review(violations)Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” procurement path decisions score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
Policy-in-state can be attacked (“ignore the policy”). High-risk creating a purchase order or awarding a vendor still needs deterministic checks. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For procurement path decisions, treat auto_create_po as the high bar (creating a purchase order or awarding a vendor). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Gold labels are policy-versioned. A criteria edit without replay is how silent false-allows ship. Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | you are here |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | failure modes |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
One Score for “compliant”? No. Atomic Nouls per rule, AND/OR in code. Money and dates: extract in code first (jaggedness).
If a regex can enforce it, should I still call Jev? Skip Jev. Official “how to build” guidance: keep deterministic rules in code when you can.
Where is the rest of the Procurement pack? Start with Procurement decision workflow and Procurement human handoff. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Will Jev pick the cheapest vendor? No. Price compare in code or the bid tool. Jev judges the justification text.
Can we paste three PDF quotes? Not as images. Extract facts you need; keep state small. Unused tokens still bill (vendor claim — confirm models page).
What this page does not claim
- Not a procurement suite or savings calculator.
- Not competition-law advice.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.