PPAP Material and Performance Test Results

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. Build a test-requirement registerExtract every material, physical, metallurgical and performance requirement from the design record and control plan.
2. Trace the sample to the submitted productRecord part number, engineering change, material supplier where applicable, test date and tested quantity.
3. Report the actual criteria and actual dataShow specification criterion and measured/test result, not only a pass/fail conclusion.
4. Cover special characteristics and drawing notesMake sure material/performance special characteristics are not lost because they are outside the dimensional report.
5. Control external testingIf testing is subcontracted, verify that the laboratory is approved/qualified as required and that the report can be traced to the submitted product.
6. Represent the operating envelopeWhere required by the source/customer, test minimum/maximum specification parts and loading sufficient for production validation and end use.
7. Maintain ongoing feasibilityCheck that specified sampling sizes/frequencies and regularly scheduled tests can actually be performed in production.

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.

• Material certificates and actual chemical/physical/metallurgical results
• Performance/functional test reports
• Part number and engineering change
• Specification number/date/revision
• Authorized engineering changes not yet in the design record
• Test date and quantity tested
• Material supplier name/vendor code when required
• Special-process evidence such as heat treatment/plating where required
• Actual criteria and actual data
• Subcontract laboratory identity and qualification
• Customer approval where specifically required

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Are material test results provided for chemical, physicals or metallurgical to the Organization Specification and compliance confirmed?
• 2.Does the submission include: a. correct part and engineering change level b. specification numbers, date and change level c. authorized engineering change documents not yet incorporated into the design d. test date e. quantity tested f. the actual results g. the material supplier’s name and, when required by the customer, the customer-assigned vendor code h. special requirements for approved steel, heat treatment, plating, etc. i. other relevant information specifically required by the customer
• 3.Are all Special Characteristics from the drawing (and drawing notes) included?
• 4.Is any nonconformance highlighted in the report? If so is deviation provided or PPAP shall be rejected!
• 5.Are all testing results less than one (1) year old?
• 6.Is all testing summarized with actual criteria and data (pass/fail statement is unacceptable)?
• 7.Will all product testing be done in-house? If not, does an approved subcontractor do it?
• 8.Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specification been tested?
• 9.Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it?
• 10.Are documented regularly scheduled tests conducted?
• 11.Is the specified test sampling size and/or frequency feasible?
• 12.If required, has customer approval been obtained for the test?

• 1.Are performance test results provided for all parts(s) or product material(s) when performance or functional requirements are specified by the design record or Control Plan.
• 2.Does the submission include: a. correct part and engineering change level b. specification numbers, date and change level c. authorized engineering change documents not yet incorporated into the design d. test date e. quantity tested f. the actual results
• 3.Are all Special characteristics from the drawing (and drawing notes) included?
• 4.Is any nonconformance highlighted in the report?
• 5.Are all testing results less than one (1) year old?
• 6.Is all testing summarized with actual criteria and data (pass/fail statement is unacceptable)?
• 7.Is test loading sufficient to provide all conditions, i.e. production validation and end use?
• 8.Will all product testing be done in-house? If not, does an approved subcontractor, do it?
• 9.Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specification been tested?
• 10.Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it?
• 11.Are documented regularly scheduled tests conducted?
• 12.Is the specified test sampling size and/or frequency feasible?
• 13.If required, has customer approval been obtained for the test?

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.

• Report says “pass” but contains no actual criterion/result
• Test report references an old specification revision
• Special characteristics from drawing notes are missing
• Nonconformance is visible but no deviation is attached
• Subcontract lab is used but qualification is not demonstrated
• Test load does not represent production validation/end-use condition
• Regular sampling frequency is specified but operationally infeasible

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: 2.2.10 Records of Material / Performance Test Results, Material Test Results, Performance Test Results. Approximate source page coverage: 9-11.

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.