DIRECT ANSWER
Match the reported PO and delivery to the exact ASN, then trace its submission, receipt and processing evidence. A sender's Sent status or a 997 alone does not establish that Walmart matched the shipment. Read the actual response and current ASN status before correcting or retransmitting anything.
Your warehouse says the advance ship notice was sent. Your EDI provider has a green status. Walmart’s record says “No ASN Received.” The useful next step is to connect those statements to the same shipment and the same message. Another screenshot of “Sent” cannot settle that comparison on its own.
This guide covers U.S. first-party suppliers shipping domestic merchandise through Walmart’s warehouse-to-store network. WFS and other Marketplace shipments, DSV customer orders, direct store delivery, DSDC, Sam’s Club and import programs require their own instructions. The checks below are Retail Reason’s investigation method, not a replacement for the applicable Walmart ASN guide or a current support response.
For a short start, download the two-column ASN review note. Capture one reported shipment, the evidence you actually have and the next request. Fill in what you know; mark missing evidence as unknown. A completed fictional note shows the level of detail to aim for.
Which shipment does the message concern?
Save the exact wording, the system or report where it appears, the report date and the time you checked it. Keep the supplier identifier, PO, receiving location, shipment or BOL reference and ASN document ID together. If a PO has several deliveries, identify the delivery under investigation rather than treating every ASN for that PO as interchangeable.
Then ask the person who sent the ASN for the original submitted document and its transmission reference. A file name, ASN document ID, transport message ID and EDI control number can identify different parts of the record. Preserve their labels and values; do not assume they are the same identifier. Keep IDs as text so leading zeros survive.
If the original work was in Supplier One, Walmart’s ASN creation guide describes an ASNs view within PO submissions, including PO or document identifiers and submission information. The full help article requires sign-in; its indexed official text was reviewed for this guide. Our Supplier One and Retail Link guide helps when the team first needs to identify the right system.
What does “sent” actually prove?
Ask which system produced the status and what event it represents. An export created by your warehouse, a handoff to your provider and a receiver’s response are separate evidence. Trace the message through the route your company actually uses.
| Evidence you have | What to check before relying on it |
|---|---|
| Warehouse or provider says Sent | What destination, environment, message and event does that label describe? |
| AS2 receipt or provider delivery record | Does it identify this message and the intended receiver? What disposition or error does it report? |
| EDI 997 | Does it acknowledge the relevant group or transaction, and what is the actual result? |
| ASN processing status or application response | What validation result is reported for this ASN? Are there errors, warnings or unresolved records? |
| Receiving or defect record | Does it refer to this delivery, and what remains inconsistent with the message evidence? |
For AS2 connections, a Message Disposition Notification (MDN) is a receipt associated with a message. Read its result and identifying information, not just whether a receipt exists. The AS2 standard distinguishes receipt information from an HTTP-level success response. Neither a green transport indicator nor an HTTP success code, by itself, establishes a completed receiving match.
The X12 definition of a 997 concerns the syntax of the exchanged documents. A matching 997 with an accepted result is useful evidence at that layer. It does not establish that every business validation passed or that Walmart matched the physical delivery. Ask the EDI owner to reconcile the returned control references to the original transmission, including the transaction detail when provided.
Do not infer acceptance from the absence of an error message. First establish whether the relevant response channel and period were checked. If a response is missing, record that evidence gap and trace it with the provider or appropriate Walmart support team.
What if Supplier One shows Submitted or Accepted?
For the domestic ASN creation workflow described in Walmart’s help guide, the statuses mean different things:
- In progress: work remains in draft form.
- Submitted: processing has been requested.
- Rejected: processing found a validation failure.
- Accepted: the required validation checks passed.
- Accepted with warnings: the document passed, with information to address in future ASNs.
Read the exact status and available detail in the current account. These Supplier One states are not interchangeable with your EDI provider’s labels. An accepted submission still needs to be connected to the PO, shipment and receiving record behind the reported problem.
For an EDI response, preserve its actual code, disposition and narrative. X12’s 824 Application Advice can report application-level outcomes. Its presence alone does not tell you whether the response is an acceptance, rejection or another result. Apply the current Walmart instructions for the response you received.
Do the identifiers and quantities describe what shipped?
Once the message is identified, compare its contents with the issued PO, shipment records and applicable mapping or entry instructions:
- Identity: supplier relationship, receiving location, PO, shipment reference and ASN document ID. Have the EDI owner confirm the intended receiver and production environment.
- Items and units: exact item identifiers, shipped quantities, unit of measure and any supported pack conversion. Twelve cases and twelve eaches are different quantities. Preserve the original units with the conversion evidence.
- Shipment structure: the relationship between orders, pallets, packs and items for this shipment type. Confirm that any shipping-container identifiers in the message correspond to the relevant physical labels. A matching grand total does not establish that every item or container is represented correctly.
Use the shipment’s actual configuration and current requirements. Do not impose one hierarchy, identifier format or resend rule on every Walmart program. A field that fails validation should be traced to its authoritative source before it is changed.
Which timestamps matter?
Keep document creation, sender handoff, receiver receipt, processing result and physical arrival as separate events, each with its source and timezone. A scheduled appointment does not establish actual arrival. A provider’s queue timestamp does not establish when Walmart received the message.
For the draft and rejected submissions it describes, Walmart’s Supplier One help guide directs completion before the Must Arrive By Date (MABD). That instruction does not establish a universal grace period or replace any arrival-based requirement in the applicable ASN program. Use the current shipment-specific requirements and the supporting record to assess timing. If the relevant receipt or arrival timestamp is missing, the timing conclusion remains unconfirmed.
A fictional example: the acknowledgment belongs to another ASN
All identifiers and events here are invented. The readable labels are placeholders, not valid Walmart or EDI values.
For shipment EXAMPLE-A, the warehouse record shows a provider handoff at 10:00 a.m. on September 10, 2026, in America/Chicago time (UTC-05:00). The original ASN is associated with EDI group GROUP-A. A later report for that delivery says “No ASN Received.”
The attached 997 reports an accepted result for GROUP-B. The EDI owner checks the original files and confirms that GROUP-B contains the ASN for a different shipment, EXAMPLE-B. The receipt and processing evidence for GROUP-A have not yet been supplied.
The supported finding is narrow: the attached acknowledgment does not establish what happened to shipment A’s ASN. It does not prove that Walmart failed, that the provider lost the file or that the ASN was late. A carrier log records arrival at 10:45 a.m., but the relevant Walmart arrival record is also still missing.
The technical owner now has a specific request: trace GROUP-A through the intended production route and return its receipt and processing result, with timestamps. The logistics owner retrieves the arrival evidence. The team preserves the original message while it establishes whether a correction is needed. No replacement transmission or financial recovery is assumed.
What should you ask the next owner to do?
Send a compact record through the appropriate support channel: the affected supplier and delivery references, original ASN and transmission references, exact reported problem, relevant responses, event times, and expected versus observed result. Include the correction or retransmission history if any exists. Share requested evidence with authorized recipients and exclude credentials from the support packet.
Make the request answerable: “Please trace this original ASN to the intended receiver and identify its receipt and processing outcome. If a correction is required, confirm the applicable correction route and how it should reference the original.” Resolve whether an ASN already exists before retransmitting or creating another one. Keep any approved correction linked to its original evidence.
If a financial charge also needs review, identify that charge and use the separate Walmart dispute-routing guide. A technical investigation does not by itself establish dispute eligibility or a refund. If the downstream question is where inventory became unavailable, continue with the inventory-to-shelf investigation.
For a recurring handoff problem, Startup Success Lab’s retail operating-system guide connects evidence, owners and follow-through. For a first-shipment launch, its day-one readiness guide helps place item data and shipment dependencies in the wider plan. Retail Reason Intelligence can help structure the investigation from context you provide; it does not retrieve your EDI records or submit ASNs.
Sources and verification scope
Source review: September 13, 2026. Official Supplier One HelpDocs text was reviewed through the public search index; direct access redirected to sign-in. Current account screens, shipment records and the applicable SQEP defect rules were not revalidated. Public X12 definitions and the AS2 standard were also reviewed. These sources support the status and acknowledgment distinctions above, not a universal charge, deadline or automatic OTIF consequence. The investigation sequence, example and notes are original editorial aids.