I am writing to formally escalate a systemic and recurring issue related to invalid Andon cord triggers, inconsistent review standards, and flawed inventory review practices, which have caused avoidable loss of sales, significant administrative burden, and operational disruption, despite full compliance from our side in every instance.

Over a recent period, multiple ASINs under our account were incorrectly flagged under Andon, even though the underlying data clearly demonstrated that these ASINs were healthy and compliant. In each of these cases:

Voice of Customer ranged from Good to Excellent

Return reasons were limited to customer-choice or non-performance-related causes, such as:

Unwanted item

Refused delivery

Found better prices elsewhere

“Product is not compatible with my existing system” for purely decorative, non-electronic products

No return reason mapped to Andon Cord – Issue Reason Codes as defined by Amazon

There were no manufacturing defects, safety concerns, or Detail Page (DP) inaccuracies

Despite this, Andon cords were triggered, entire inventories were stranded under INVENTORY UNDER REVIEW, and additional documentation requirements were repeatedly raised, even after complete and correct submissions were provided.

Core Issues Requiring Escalation

1. Invalid Andon Triggers Based Solely on Return Reasons

Andon cords appear to be triggered mechanically, based only on return reason codes, without validating whether the reason actually indicates a seller-controllable issue or DP inconsistency. For decorative and non-electronic products, such logic is fundamentally flawed.

2. FC Disposition Is Ignored Despite Being a Critical Data Point

FC dispositions such as SELLABLE and CUSTOMER DAMAGED are determined after physical inspection using Amazon’s own fulfilment infrastructure.

Ignoring FC disposition leads to invalid Andon creation, even when the physical condition of units has already been verified.

Units marked SELLABLE are physically intact

Units marked CUSTOMER DAMAGED indicate post-delivery handling, not seller fault

These outcomes must be considered alongside return reasons.

3. SELLABLE Units Should Not Be Eligible for Andon Review

Units disposed as SELLABLE are not re-dispatched by sellers to new customers and therefore should not be subjected to Andon review at all. Including such units inflates review scope without improving customer experience.

4. FC Inwarding Process Is Not Accounted For

When sellers dispatch inventory to FC for the first time, all units are shipped with intact primary packaging. Amazon’s FC inwarding inspections already filter damaged or defective units, with shipment problem alerts raised where applicable.

Only first-time inwarded units, not returned or previously handled inventory, should ever be considered for Andon evaluation—and even then within a clearly defined scope.

5. Entire Inventory Is Stranded Instead of Sample-Based Review

In recent incidents, the Andon team stranded complete inventories, instead of isolating a limited sample of units for testing and review. This approach causes:

Immediate loss of sales

Ranking and momentum disruption

Disproportionate commercial impact

A controlled, sample-based review would achieve the same objective without penalizing the entire ASIN.

6. No Defined TAT for “Inventory Under Review”

Once inventory is placed under INVENTORY UNDER REVIEW, there is no defined turnaround time.

In a recent case, inventory was stranded on 18th December, with no testing, no communication, and no action taken for several days.

A mandatory review TAT (24–48 hours) must be implemented to prevent indefinite inventory blocking.

7. Unwarranted Demand for QC Reports for Non-Regulated Products

Demanding a formal QC report for artificial flowers and decorative products is not aligned with any statutory, regulatory, or industry-mandated standard.

Despite there being no regulatory requirement, we have consistently shared our internal quality control analysis to demonstrate our commitment to quality and brand reputation.

However, the Andon team has developed an incorrect internal practice of demanding QC reports for non-regulated décor products, resulting in invalid and unnecessary documentation requirements that do not improve customer outcomes.

8. Significant Seller Time Loss and Productivity Drain

Due to repeated invalid Andon cords, we were forced to:

Analyze each ASIN individually

Re-check internal QC data

Re-validate FBA and return metrics

Prepare extensive documentation repeatedly

This process consumed nearly two weeks of productive time, during which:

Sales were lost

ASINs with EXCELLENT Voice of Customer were blocked

Products with zero or negligible performance-related returns were penalized

Ultimately, across all these ASINs, the conclusion was the same:

the Andon triggers were invalid.

Inconsistent Review Standards and Established Precedent

The same documentation format (POA, internal QC analysis, questionnaires) has been accepted and ASINs reactivated in earlier cases by the same team, without additional requirements.

Representative case IDs include:

11991957082

11994144292

11993077752

11994192812

(and several more)

This establishes clear precedent that the format and compliance approach are valid. Re-questioning the same format later reflects inconsistent review standards.

System Objective vs. Actual Outcome

Amazon’s systems are expected to help sellers learn, grow, improve, and perform better.

However, the current Andon implementation achieves the opposite:

Wastes productive seller time

Causes avoidable sales loss

Penalizes compliant, high-performing ASINs

Creates fear of arbitrary enforcement rather than continuous improvement

We are long-standing sellers, reputed IPR owners, and brand builders. Sellers are contributors to Amazon’s ecosystem, not adversaries. Systems designed to protect customers must not function in a way that systematically penalizes compliant sellers without accountability or correction.

Requested Corrective Actions

We respectfully request the following:

Immediate closure and reactivation of affected ASINs without further documentation requests

A process-level review of Andon trigger logic, ensuring FC disposition and inwarding data are considered

Exclusion of SELLABLE units from Andon eligibility

Introduction of a mandatory 24–48 hour TAT for INVENTORY UNDER REVIEW status

Removal of QC report demands for non-regulated decorative products

Standardization of review criteria, so formats accepted once are not questioned again

We request acknowledgment of this escalation and clarity on the corrective measures being implemented to prevent recurrence.

Regards