§ 40 — Use Cases
Use Cases
Pattern-level analyses of what works and what fails when supply-chain AI is applied to specific functions and techniques (demand forecasting, inventory optimization, procurement automation, warehouse computer vision), synthesized from the Post-Mortems and corroborated by cited external research (e.g., MIT CTL, SupplyChainBrain, peer-reviewed studies) rather than recycled unsourced industry statistics. Every claim carries a named source and date. Distinct from Post-Mortems (single-deployment accounts) and Readiness (task checklists): this section answers whether a category of AI application actually delivers, and under what conditions it fails, at a pattern level.
Failure pattern: data quality
Source: Atlas AI / Engie Energy Access
Failure pattern: audit-traceability gap
Source: Watershed 2026 analysis, IntegrityNext 2026 report
Failure pattern: organizational-gap
Source: Loadstar/Raft 2026 survey
Failure pattern: unclear business value
Source: AI Agent Adoption 2026: Enterprise Data Points (Digital Applied, 2026)
Failure pattern: single-city pilot scalability
Source: PMC 2023 review on AI in solid waste management
Failure pattern: last-mile action gap
Source: Jiménez-Esteve et al. (arXiv 2024) and CDP (May 2026)
Failure pattern: inadequate early detection of contamination signals
Source: Lin and Hertig 2023 fuzzy DEMATEL study
Failure pattern: data governance gap
Source: arXiv:2601.09680 (AlMahri et al., 2025)
Failure pattern: overstated vendor claims
Source: Food Processing 2026, LF Decentralized Trust, Mergen AI 2026, Consumer Goods 2025, Lumafield
Failure pattern: fragmented lot-level data
Source: Food Logistics (Sep 2024)
Failure pattern: subcontractor coverage gap
Source: Amazon 2026 disclosure, UPS ORION, SlateSafety/Benchmark Gensuite
Failure pattern: infrastructure gap
Source: Citi/Ant International pilot (July 2025), Capital A deployment (October 2025), Coronation Merchant Bank (2023), Vanguard NG (March 2026), Tech in Africa (2026)
Failure pattern: training data mismatch under shock conditions
Source: o9, Kinaxis, RELEX, Anaplan, Blue Yonder public evidence (2025-2026), Xeneta risk report, KPMG/Gartner, MIT Sloan framework
