Marketplace software routes on one seller job, with unsupported candidates left blank

This marketplace seller software product comparison cannot support a named winner. No exact current product edition had a completed dossier and common controlled test. The useful comparison is therefore between procurement routes, including the seller's existing manual process, with every candidate-specific value left blank.

Research closed on 6 September 2026. The scope is one fictional England seller moving approved product and stock records into one authorised marketplace account, then reconciling later order states.

Fix the job and unit

Each route is judged on one product-to-order fixture, not on a feature count. Keep listing transmission, rendered offer, stock, order acceptance, payment authorisation, capture, fulfilment, cancellation, return, refund, dispute and settlement separate. The commercial unit must state currency, VAT basis, charging event, period, term and limits. No comparable price evidence was admitted, so all money fields are UNKNOWN.

HMRC's VAT record guidance identifies record categories for VAT-registered businesses. It does not decide this seller's tax treatment, so accountant review remains a separate gate.

Record the seller source system, marketplace account permission, product identifier and evidence version before testing. A route that accepts a field but changes its meaning is not comparable with one that preserves it. The buyer must also define how duplicate, late, rejected and corrected events enter the result.

Compare route mechanics

Route	Buyer control	Evidence required	Controlled test	Exit evidence
Current manual process	Seller owns steps and hand-offs	Versioned records, permissions and review logs	Same fictional fixture and exception states	Usable archive and documented continuity
Existing account configuration	Depends on marketplace controls	Exact account permission and current first-party terms	Configuration-specific state checks	Export, access removal and recovery record
Buyer-built integration	Seller owns code and supplier dependencies	Interface, schema, security and maintenance evidence	Versioned fixture, rollback and isolated restore	Source, data and dependency transition plan
Hosted software service	Supplier claims need verification	Legal entity, exact edition, service records and contract	Identical fixture in authorised test space	Export format, deletion and alternative route
Managed service	Split responsibilities must be explicit	Agency entity, staff access, service scope and evidence	Provider performs authorised steps under observation	Credential revocation, hand-back and retained records

No route is inherently superior. First-party service records would need to be dated and tied to the exact edition, UK availability and account context before a named column could be filled.

The same unit applies to support and recovery. Record a buyer-authored support event and its evidence rather than inventing a response-time target. For exit, require the same product, stock, order, correction and audit records in an agreed format, followed by access removal and an isolated restore. A downloadable file that cannot reproduce the needed state does not complete the test.

Keep the gates comparable

GOV.UK online-selling guidance identifies product information, pricing, ordering and confirmation matters. The same fictional fixture should check these fields for every route without claiming legal compliance.

For personal data, compare role, instruction, subprocessor, transfer, retention, access and end-of-contract evidence. The ICO's controller-processor guidance is currently under DUAA review, so publication-day specialist checking is required.

Security comparison needs evidence rather than a badge. NCSC supplier-assurance questions cover governance, access, incidents, recovery and contractual controls. Product safety, accessibility, tax and consumer presentation remain separate pass or hold gates.

The accessibility check uses the same defined staff and customer tasks for each route, including correction, cancellation and refund where in scope. Record method and unresolved barriers. Do not infer accessibility from a supplier statement or a successful mouse-and-screen task.

Withhold a recommendation

Record PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED or NOT TESTED for each predeclared requirement. Leave buyer weights and thresholds blank. A successful fictional export or product update establishes only that action in the recorded setup. Until named editions supply complete dated first-party records and pass the shared test, the comparison verdict remains HOLD with no preferred route.

Any later comparison must retain excluded candidates and reasons in the audit trail. That prevents a convenient shortlist from being mistaken for the full market.