Distinguish PPAP evidence from production authorization

Distinguish PPAP evidence from production authorization

PPAP concerns evidence that the production process can consistently meet the relevant design and specification requirements under actual production conditions. Determine the customer's submission and change requirements before assembling the package. Link the evidence to the correct part, revision, process and production conditions. Submission, review and authorization are distinct states; possessing records is not the same as having approval. Preserve the decision and any conditions so the shop floor cannot silently treat an unresolved status as permission to ship. The workflow shown here is an original overview, not a complete PPAP element list, a submission level or a substitute for customer-specific instructions.

Follow the method

1. Requirements
2. Part + revision
3. Production evidence
4. Submission + decision
5. Retained status

Keep submission, evidence and authorization as separate states

Fictional case: supplier Meridian has assembled a production-evidence package for bracket M42 revision C. The actual run used process revision P7. Coordinator Ana finds an older approval for product revision B and a new submission receipt, but no applicable customer decision for C/P7. The core lesson’s boundary remains: a collection of files is not production authorization.

Follow the method

1. Correct part/process?
2. Package submitted?
3. Applicable decision?
4. Next action

Submitted does not mean approved

Connect production evidence to the correct part and process revision, and distinguish submission, customer decision and continuing authorization conditions.

Fictional case: supplier Meridian has assembled a production-evidence package for bracket M42 revision C. The actual run used process revision P7. Coordinator Ana finds an older approval for product revision B and a new submission receipt, but no applicable customer decision for C/P7. The core lesson’s boundary remains: a collection of files is not production authorization.

Role: Supplier quality coordinator with customer quality and engineering

Normal condition

Required evidence, submission conditions, product/process identity and the retained customer decision correspond to the intended production scope.

The gap

The shipping team sees a complete folder and treats the submission timestamp as approval. An old decision is reused because the part number looks similar.

• The workflow is not a complete PPAP element list or a prescribed submission level.
• Applicable customer requirements govern submission, change notification and authorization.

1. Confirm the required submission scope

   Ana checks the applicable customer requirements, part/revision and reason for submission or change. She identifies who can clarify the required evidence and submission level.

   Why: A generic checklist cannot override customer-specific conditions. The first task is to know which approval question the package must answer.

   Evidence: A scope record names customer, product revision and process conditions.

2. Bind evidence to actual production conditions

   She traces the representative run records to M42/C and P7, including the applicable equipment, material and production conditions. Any limitations remain explicit.

   Why: Evidence from a prototype or different process condition may not support the intended production claim. A report title alone does not prove applicability.

   Evidence: Each evidence item identifies its source run and revision.

3. Reconcile the package before submission

   Ana checks required evidence for completeness and internal consistency, resolving mismatched revisions rather than hiding them in appendices. She distinguishes submitted material from retained material required under the applicable process.

   Why: A package can be extensive and still fail to answer the correct requirement. File count is not an evidence-quality measure.

   Evidence: The review record identifies each requirement and its matching evidence or gap.

4. Track the actual customer decision

   The submission receipt is recorded as receipt only. Ana retrieves the applicable customer decision and any conditions through the authorized channel; absence of a decision is not interpreted as approval.

   Why: Submission, review and authorization are different states. An older decision cannot silently extend to a changed product or process.

   Evidence: Current status remains decision pending in this fictional record.

5. Retain conditions and manage later changes

   After an actual authorized decision, the team retains its identity, scope and conditions and monitors relevant changes through the customer requirements. Operational instructions reference the correct status.

   Why: Approval is meaningful only for its defined scope. Subsequent changes may require notification or resubmission; the teaching example does not decide those obligations.

   Evidence: The status record preserves the decision and identifies the change-review owner.

A conditional decision arrives

The customer issues a decision with explicitly limited scope or conditions.

Retain the exact applicable conditions, make them visible to the receiving operation and follow the required process for closure or further authorization.

A conditional decision must not be relabelled unconditional approval for convenience. The actual authorized wording and scope govern.

The internal status links to the retained decision and its unresolved conditions.

Run a practice session

Materials

• Revision and decision cards
• Blank status record
• Customer-requirement placeholder clearly marked missing

1. Separate the states · 5 minutes

   What does receipt prove?

2. Trace the evidence scope · 8 minutes

   Which run supports which revision?

3. Review the tool change · 10 minutes

   What must be checked before extending approval?

4. Debrief conditions · 5 minutes

   Who must see a limited decision?

Debrief

• Do not ask learners to invent a PPAP level.
• Challenge file-count or silence-as-approval reasoning.

Write a status line that would remain truthful if read by shipping, engineering and customer quality.

Transfer into the work

Owner: Supplier quality and authorized customer interface

Record: Requirement-to-evidence map and retained decision/conditions

Review: At submissions, decisions and relevant changes

Evidence: Correct revision/production scope and explicit authorization status

Resolve scope or evidence gaps through the customer process before representing a submission as approved.