The share of purchase orders arriving on time and in full (OTIF) fell to 63.6% in the third quarter, and the loss came from missing units rather than late trucks [1]. On-time delivery slipped just 1.9 points, to 66.5% [1]. The hidden gap is the quantity, the half of the score a buyer’s stock buffer protects, and purchasing managers reported in September that the buffer is thin [2].

The big picture:

Every purchase order (PO) must pass two checks: the date it arrives and the total item count.

Trucks protect the date, while stock guards the count. For three years, both scores climbed together. On-time shipping rose from 55.0% in early 2023 to 68.4% by the second quarter of this year [1].

Both scores peaked there: the combined rate reached 66.1% [1].

Then the two scores split. The total score dropped 2.5 points, widening the gap with the on-time rate [1].

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) tracks the other side of this split. In September, purchasing managers rated their customers’ stock levels at 41.6, the 24th straight month in the “too low” zone [2]. Their own stock fell to 48.6, back in contraction [2].

At the same time, the prices index jumped 6.8 points to 77.9, back to its level when the Iran war began [2]. Twenty-four commodities were reported up in price, and none were reported down [2].

What strikes me is how these two reports view the exact same quarter from opposite ends of an order. One tracks what hit the dock. The other tracks what buyers had on the shelf, and the high cost to put it there.

My read is that the in-full gate works as a shock absorber. When input costs spike and the shelf is thin, a supplier cannot absorb the whole cost, so it holds a smaller promise. The record 10.9% of orders changed by the supplier looks like that decision being made, up from 8.8% last quarter [1].

Suppliers also slowed down. Average response time stretched to 52.2 hours, the slowest since the third quarter of 2024 [1]. More than a third of closed lines (36.4%) changed at least once before shipping [1].

By the numbers

  • 63.6% — Total success rate: The share of order lines arriving on time and complete in the third quarter, down from 66.1% [1].
  • 41.6 — Client stock index: Buyers have rated their clients’ shelf stock as too low for 24 straight months [2].
  • 77.9 — Price index: The score jumped 6.8 points in September to hit war-start highs, with 24 goods rising and none falling [2].
  • 10.9% — Supplier order changes: The share of orders changed by the supplier hit a four-year high, up from 8.8% [1].

What I’d watch:

The people closest to this are tracking the pieces, not the headline, because the pieces now disagree.

  • The two-part gap: The full-count rate lost 2.5 points while the on-time rate lost just 1.9, placing the real pain in the missing goods [1]. A buyer watching only the top score misses the lost volume entirely.
  • The change log: Suppliers changed a record 10.9% of orders before shipping, and 36.4% of closed lines moved at least once [1]. This log flags misses early, making it the cheapest place to spot trouble.
  • Response time: At a 52.2-hour average, buyers lose two full work days just checking a date before they can make new plans [1].
  • The short-supply list: ISM buyers flagged memory, dynamic random access memory (DRAM), and electronic parts as hard to get [2]. When parts run short, the full-order check fails first.
  • The price of speed: Ground parcel rates sat 38.8% above their January 2018 base in the third quarter and are projected to reach 43.3% in the fourth [3]. Speed costs more this quarter, and it adds no units to a thin shelf.

The freight market shows this same squeeze. Diesel fuel averaged $6.199 a gallon in early October, sitting $2.488 higher than last year [4].

Teams track and manage that clear fuel line. The item count is the line that quietly slips away.

The catch

SourceDay builds this index from its own network data, but it does not share the exact count of suppliers or orders [5]. The firm sells software to fix this exact problem, and it weights the score by choice: 40% for on-time shipping, 30% for fast replies, and 30% for steady orders [5].

The ISM survey carries a different limit. It is a diffusion index, built from what purchasing managers report rather than from a count of shipments [2]. A reading above 50 means more respondents saw an increase than a decrease.

Sentiment can shift before a single pallet moves.

One quarter does not make a trend. A sudden shift in the product mix could create the exact same score. If buyers tested new suppliers or bought rare items, the full-count rate would drop before the on-time rate without any real market change.

I could be wrong about the root cause. Still, the data confirms a narrow, useful truth: item counts broke before timing, supplier changes spiked before both, and the shelf stock behind it all remains thin.

At a glance

  • The Big Shift: The share of orders arriving on time and complete dropped to 63.6% in the third quarter, with the gap driven by missing parts rather than late trucks [1].
  • Why It Matters: Trucks protect the delivery date, but stock protects the item count. Buyers now meet a unit shortfall with thin shelves, as customers’ inventories stay too low for a 24th month while input prices return to war-start levels [2].
  • What I’d Watch:
  • The two-part gap: Whether the full-count rate keeps falling faster than the on-time rate, proving the crisis sits in the factory rather than on the road [1].
  • The change log: Supplier order changes hit a record 10.9%, acting as an early warning sign before the actual truck fails [1].
  • The short-supply list: The specific parts ISM buyers flag, because raw material shortages trigger unit misses first [2].
  • The Catch: The index relies on one vendor’s hidden network data and covers just one quarter, while a simple shift in the product mix could produce the exact same score [5].

Related reading

Sources

[1] SourceDay, “Supplier Reliability Trends 2026: Record Price Pressure and Rising PO Changes,” Fall 2026 Supplier Reliability Index, 8 October 2026 — https://sourceday.com/blog/supplier-reliability-trends-2026/ [2] Institute for Supply Management, “Manufacturing PMI at 54.5%; September 2026 ISM Manufacturing PMI Report,” 1 October 2026 — https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/manufacturing-pmi-at-54-5-september-2026-ism-manufacturing-pmi-report-302894520.html [3] Supply Chain Dive, “FedEx, UPS delivery prices set for record-high Q4,” 16 October 2026, citing the TD Cowen/AFS Freight Index — https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/fedex-ups-delivery-prices-set-for-record-high-q4/832992/ [4] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update,” week of 5 October 2026 — https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ [5] SourceDay, “Supplier Reliability Index” methodology and report page, Fall 2026 — https://sourceday.com/supplier-reliability-index/