You issue the pump datasheet at Rev 2: flow, head, the 3-in. suction, the seal plan, the driver. The vendor bids it, wins it, and eight weeks later sends back a certified GA and a performance curve. The impeller trim came in a hair off what you specced, the seal plan changed to a 53B because of the fluid, and the discharge nozzle rotated 90 degrees to suit their casting. All of that is normal. All of it is probably right. None of it is in your datasheet.

The vendor print goes to the document controller, gets stamped Code 2 (approved as noted, revise and resubmit), and drops into the vendor-documents folder. Your datasheet is still sitting at Rev 2 in the engineering folder one directory over, describing a pump that no longer exists. The two files never meet. They aren't supposed to. Nothing in the workflow makes them.

Why vendor data drifts from your design

A vendor print isn't on your revision schedule. It's on the vendor's. It shows up when the shop gets to it, usually a month after your datasheet was 'done,' and it arrives with the changes a real supplier always makes: a nozzle rotated for the casting, a trim to land on the duty point, a seal plan the fluid actually needs. Somebody reviews the print against the datasheet, in their head, from whatever version they last remember, stamps it, and files it. The datasheet almost never gets walked back to match.

• The datasheet lives in the engineering folder; the vendor print lives in the vendor-documents folder; nothing connects the two.
• Review is a Code 1/2/3 stamp on the vendor's PDF, not a diff against your datasheet.
• The nozzle orientation on the certified GA doesn't match the P&ID or the piping model. Piping finds out at model review, if you're lucky, or at fit-up, if you're not.
• The vendor resubmits at their Rev B, and nobody re-checks whether your Rev 2 datasheet still describes the machine.

The mismatch shows up at the worst time

The datasheet is the thing your downstream documents trust. The line list took the 3-in. suction from it. The P&ID drew the nozzle where it said. Procurement bought a spool to suit. So when the vendor rotates the discharge nozzle and the datasheet never catches up, all of that is now pointing at a pump that ships built the other way around. You find out at spool fit-up, when the flange is facing the wrong direction, and the fix is a hot work permit and a bad afternoon.

A stamp on a vendor print means the vendor's drawing got reviewed. It says nothing about whether your datasheet still matches the pump they're about to build.

How Kord keeps vendor data and your design in sync

• Sync the vendor-documents folder alongside the engineering set, so the certified GA and your datasheet sit in the same place instead of two directories that never talk.
• When a vendor print lands, Kord diffs it as a real document and the consistency check flags the datasheet, the P&ID, and the line list still carrying the old nozzle orientation and suction size.
• The vendor print and every document it touches go into one review session, so the datasheet gets reconciled to the machine before the discrepancy reaches piping.
• Every vendor revision is versioned, so a Rev B resubmittal doesn't overwrite the history of what Rev A said or who approved it.
• The approved set ties the datasheet revision to the vendor print revision it was checked against, so 'the pump is Code 1' means a specific pair of documents that actually agree.

Long-lead equipment is where a lot of the money and most of the schedule risk lives, and the vendor print is the moment your design meets what's actually getting built. Handle it as a change against your set (diff it, reconcile the datasheet, review the two together) instead of a PDF that gets a stamp and a folder. The alternative is learning about the rotated nozzle when the spool won't fit.