PPAP Design Record: Drawings, Specifications and Characteristic Identification

01How to use this chapter

This chapter separates the uploaded assessment criteria from practical KEVOS implementation guidance. The section titled Source-derived assessment criteria preserves the intent, terminology and checklist detail supplied in the uploaded PPAP Assessment. The surrounding handbook guidance explains how a manufacturing or supplier-quality team can organise evidence, perform a readiness review and spot gaps before formal submission. Where the uploaded source states a numeric threshold, edition reference or customer-specific expectation, it is identified as source-derived rather than presented as a universal rule.

Use the chapter in three passes. First, read the purpose and workflow to understand what the element is meant to prove. Second, work through the source-derived prompts against the actual part number, engineering revision and production process. Third, close the red flags and collect objective evidence before the package is released. For large PPAPs, record the evidence location beside each source prompt so another reviewer can repeat the assessment without relying on verbal explanation.

02Handbook workflow

1. Establish the released baselineConfirm the exact part number, drawing number, engineering change level and specification revisions applicable to the submission.
2. Build the characteristic registerBalloon the drawing or maintain a characteristics library that captures dimensions, notes, attributes, material requirements, performance requirements and customer-specific requirements.
3. Standardise reporting units and formatUse the dimensional form and units required by the Organization drawing and keep them consistent throughout the PPAP.
4. Identify functional and durability driversHighlight dimensions and characteristics that affect fit, function and durability so they can receive appropriate analysis and control.
5. Plan gaging from the design intentCheck that datums and control points support functional gage or inspection design and minimise unnecessary layout effort.
6. Challenge inspectability and manufacturabilityEscalate requirements that cannot be evaluated with known inspection techniques or tolerances that are incompatible with the intended manufacturing method.
7. Trace every downstream recordPFMEA, control plan, dimensional report, test result and capability study should use the same characteristic identity and revision baseline.

03Evidence package to retain

The assessment is stronger when each conclusion points to a controlled record rather than a statement that the requirement is “covered”. The following evidence set is a practical minimum for this chapter; actual customer and contractual requirements govern the live submission.

• Organization and supplier drawings where both apply
• List of supporting specifications and revision status
• Ballooned drawing or controlled characteristics library
• Special-characteristic identification
• Unit/reporting convention
• Datum and gaging strategy
• Traceability to dimensional, material and performance evidence
• Controlled-access statement or equivalent evidence for current specifications

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Is a copy of the drawing included that support the part or assembly – both Organization and supplier drawing?
• 2.Is a list of specification supporting the production of this part provided?
• 3.Is change level verification assured or available that the supplier has the latest revisions of specification?
• 4.Is the form of dimension throughout the PPAP identical in all documentation, (metric / English)
• 5.Is the form of reporting dimensions throughout the PPAP per Organization drawing?
• 6.Have dimensions that affect fit, function and durability been identified?
• 7.Are reference dimensions identified to minimize inspection layout time?
• 8.Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces identified to design functional gages?
• 9.Are tolerances compatible with accepted manufacturing standards?
• 10.Are there any requirements specified that can’t be evaluated using known inspection techniques?

05Common red flags

These are practical review signals derived from the relationships and controls repeatedly required by the source. A red flag does not automatically mean the submission must be rejected; it means the condition deserves documented resolution before approval.

• Balloon numbers differ between drawing and dimensional results
• Specifications are referenced without revision/date
• Metric and English units are mixed without controlled conversion
• Fit/function dimensions are not distinguished from informational/reference dimensions
• A requirement exists that the supplier cannot measure with the planned equipment
• Tolerance strategy is clearly tighter than the process can sustain but no design/manufacturing review is shown
• Customer notes or attributes are missing from the characteristic register

06Cross-document interfaces

PPAP elements should not be reviewed as isolated files. Check the following interfaces for consistent part identity, revision, characteristic naming, operation numbering and control logic.

07Assessor close-out checklist

• The element is present or a controlled waiver/agreement explains why it is not required.
• The submitted record identifies the correct part number and engineering revision where applicable.
• The evidence is legible, understandable, controlled and traceable to the submitted product/process.
• Special characteristics and known customer concerns are treated consistently across related documents.
• Any nonconformance, temporary control, deviation or interim condition is visible and formally dispositioned.
• Actions have owners, due dates and objective closure evidence where the source expects corrective action.
• The final conclusion can be independently repeated by another reviewer using the package alone.

08Frequently asked questions

09Source and limitations

Primary source: uploaded Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Assessment / PPAP Submission Assessment, 15 pages, Quality-One. Source sections used on this page: 2.2.1 Design Record. Approximate source page coverage: 1-2.

This KEVOS chapter is an educational and assessment aid. It preserves the uploaded document's criteria but does not replace controlled customer-specific requirements, engineering specifications, contractual requirements or an official PPAP/APQP manual. Where the source references “PPAP 4th edition”, AIAG methods, Organization systems or Organization-specific targets, those references are retained as source context rather than silently updated or generalized.