Every large inventory deal begins with a description of what is being sold. In this case, that description came from Gap. SVES used Gap's Available to Sell lists to prepare the purchase orders and attached the same lists to the transaction documents.
The specification was not independent of the seller
Gap knew its brands, distribution centers, product codes and size runs. SVES knew what Gap placed in the ATS files. The buyer priced the opportunity, arranged financing, allocated labor and secured storage around the information the seller provided.
When seller-generated data defines the order, accuracy is not a favor. It is the commercial foundation of the sale.
What a reconciliation would show
A complete reconciliation would connect every ATS line to a purchase order, every purchase order to a shipment, every shipment to a bill of lading and every received carton to the size data recorded at origin. It would identify substitutions, shortages, overages and the distribution centers that supplied the extended-size merchandise.
The files have more weight than the rhetoric
The dispute has accumulated competing percentages, legal arguments and years of commercial damage. None of those can replace the unit-level record. If the ATS files match what Gap loaded, the chain will show it. If the goods diverged from those files, the same chain will expose where the transaction changed.
SVES has been left arguing from warehouse counts while Gap retains the upstream systems. The party with the records has the shortest path to an answer and the least incentive to make the entire path visible.
