It may be "questionable" if (i) the delay is really just one week and (ii) we expect there to be no prolonged stock-outs in future.
If (i) is untrue then I think we have to be able to give something other than advice (see below).
If (ii) is untrue then we should have a plan to carry to carry us over stockouts. This is usually done by holding a buffer stock but a mixed buffer stock / local production system may have a place. In settings with weak logistics it can be difficult to build a buffer stock.
I don't think giving advice is a sufficient strategy as it is unlikely to be efective with very severe cases and, at the start of a program, we expect there to be many very severe cases. I think we really ought to try to give something with some proven clinical effectiveness - hence my suggestion to give the CTC protocol (antimicrobials, antihelminthics, antimalarials, ORS, &c.) with an RUTF substitute or a locally prepared RUTF.
I also worry that coverage can be difficult to build unless something approaching a complete protocol with much better than marginal clinical effectiveness is given. "Go to this program and get nothing but patronising lectures" or "Go to this program and watch you child die slowly" are not the best impressions to have in circulation. Such impressions can be very hard to correct once they gain circulation. It may even be better from a utilitarian perspective to delay program start until supplies are sorted.
I agree that you can beg and borrow. This can be hard to do as RUTF supplies are often centralised (e.g. one agency may be responsible for a key link in the RUTF supply chain) and everyone may be feeling the pinch. In situations like this I usually turn to organisations with good logistics such as MSF and ask nicely.
It is good to have a plan. I think it likely that the original poster had a plan but they were let down by a partner organistion who promised to supply RUTF but failed to deliver.