PPAP 18 Elements Checklist: What Each Element Has to Show to Pass a Customer Submission Review
The PPAP package leaves the supplier on a Friday. Monday afternoon the customer SQE sends back the disposition. Interim. Three findings. The dimensional results show a Critical characteristic with a Ppk of 1.55 where the customer specific requirement is 1.67. The Control Plan revision in the binder is C, but the PFMEA referenced in the warrant is at revision B. Element 11 is missing the measurement method on two of the four capability studies.
None of those are engineering failures. The parts are good. The process is in control. What failed was the submission review, and a submission review is a documentation audit, not a parts audit. The reviewer has a checklist, the checklist comes from the AIAG PPAP 4th Edition, and the package either passes the checklist or it does not.
This post is that checklist, one element at a time, written from the reviewer's seat. For each element we cover what it has to contain, the document that proves it, and the specific defects that get a package marked Interim or Rejected at Level 3. If you build the package against this list before you ship it, the disposition that comes back is the one you wanted.
For the full 101 on PPAP itself, see What is PPAP? A Complete Guide for Quality Engineers. For the platform side of how purpose-built tools enforce this list automatically, see PPAP Software: How Purpose-Built Tools Reduce Submission Rework. The June 16 webinar Deliver Your PPAP Right the First Time walks through the same submission discipline against a live package.
Submission Levels in One Paragraph
The 18 elements are scoped by submission level. Level 1 sends Element 18 only. Level 2 sends the warrant plus product samples and a limited data package. Level 3 is the customer default for new parts and sends the full warrant, full samples, and complete supporting data. Level 4 sends the warrant and what the customer specifically asks for. Level 5 keeps the entire package at the supplier for on-site customer review. The customer sets the level. Most of this post assumes Level 3 because Level 3 is what the reviewer is auditing line by line.
Element 1: Design Records
The current, complete engineering drawing for the part, at the revision the parts were built to. If the customer owns the design, they supplied the print. If the supplier is design-responsible, the supplier's released drawing.
What the reviewer is looking for. The drawing in the binder, its revision letter, and the revision letter on the warrant all match. Every page is present. Every view is legible. The title block is filled out.
What gets it kicked back. A drawing one revision behind the latest ECN that was already incorporated into the part. Missing pages on a multi-sheet print. A revision mismatch between the design record and the warrant. A scanned drawing where the General Notes are unreadable.
Element 2: Authorized Engineering Change Documents
The ECR, ECN, or deviation packages that drove the current revision and any temporary deviations active at submission.
What the reviewer is looking for. The change documents that explain how the revision in Element 1 got there. Customer-signed deviations for anything in production that does not conform to the released print.
What gets it kicked back. A revision change with no ECN supporting it. A deviation that is informally documented in an email instead of a signed change record. An ECN incorporated into the part that did not flow into the design record yet, with no deviation to cover the gap.
Element 3: Customer Engineering Approval, If Required
Written confirmation from the customer's engineering team that the design or change meets their intent.
What the reviewer is looking for. A signed approval where the part is engineered to a customer specification that lives outside the released print, or where the supplier proposed an alternate that the customer accepted.
What gets it kicked back. A supplier-proposed change shipped without engineering signoff. A material substitution accepted verbally in a quote review but never written into a change record.
Element 4: Design FMEA
Required only if the supplier is design-responsible. A documented analysis of design failure modes, their effects, their causes, the design controls in place, and the resulting Risk Priority Number or Action Priority depending on which edition of the FMEA handbook is in use.
What the reviewer is looking for. A DFMEA that lists every key function of the part, every characteristic on the print that is a special, and recommended actions for the high-priority items. Revision and date that pre-date the dimensional results.
What gets it kicked back. A DFMEA with no Special Characteristics flagged when the print clearly designates them. A revision dated after the parts were built, indicating it was reverse-engineered to fit the submission. Action items left open with no due date or owner.
Element 5: Process Flow Diagram
A graphical representation of every operation in the manufacturing process from raw material receipt through shipment, with operation numbers that match the Control Plan.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every step in the value stream represented. Inspection operations, rework loops, and outsourced steps included. Operation numbers consistent with the PFMEA and the Control Plan.
What gets it kicked back. A flow diagram that ends at final inspection without showing packaging, labeling, or shipping. An outsourced heat-treat operation missing from the flow but present in the Control Plan. Operation numbers that drift between Process Flow, PFMEA, and Control Plan.
Element 6: Process FMEA
The process-side risk analysis. For every operation in the Process Flow, the potential failure modes, effects, causes, current process controls for prevention and detection, and the resulting priority.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every Special Characteristic from the print appears in the PFMEA as a function with associated failure modes. The Severity rating for any safety or regulatory characteristic is 9 or 10. Detection ratings consistent with what the Control Plan actually requires.
What gets it kicked back. A PFMEA that uses Severity 7 for a regulatory characteristic. A Critical Characteristic with no current controls listed. Recommended actions closed in the PFMEA but not reflected as revisions to the Control Plan or work instructions. Our Process FMEA Practical Guide covers what reviewers actually scrutinize line by line.
Element 7: Control Plan
The shop-floor execution document. For every operation, every characteristic measured, the specification, the measurement method, the sample size, the frequency, the reaction plan, and the responsible role.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every Special Characteristic from Element 1 appears in the Control Plan with the correct designator. Sample sizes and frequencies are specified, not blank. Reaction plans name a specific containment step, not "notify quality."
What gets it kicked back. A Special Characteristic on the print that does not appear on the Control Plan at all. A blank reaction plan. A sample size that contradicts the MSA in Element 8, for example a check requiring a gauge with a %GRR of 22 percent when the AIAG MSA threshold for that classification is 10 percent. See Control Plan in Manufacturing for what a passing Control Plan looks like in the binder.
Element 8: Measurement System Analysis Studies
MSA studies on the gauges used to produce the dimensional results in Element 9 and the capability studies in Element 11. Typically Gauge R&R for variable data, Attribute Agreement Analysis for go/no-go and visual checks, linearity and bias for newer or re-staged gauges.
What the reviewer is looking for. A study for every gauge used on a Special Characteristic. %GRR within the AIAG MSA acceptance range, NDC of 5 or more for variable studies. Study revision and date pre-dating the dimensional results.
What gets it kicked back. %GRR of 28 percent on a Critical Characteristic. A capability study using a gauge that has no MSA on file at all. Attribute Agreement Analysis with effectiveness below 90 percent for a visual reject. Our breakdown of Gauge R&R Acceptance Criteria explains what the customer is actually checking in this element.
Element 9: Dimensional Results
The first piece inspection on the parts being submitted. Every dimension on the print, measured on the required sample size with the actual measured value, the specification, and the pass or fail call.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every characteristic on the drawing has a result. Each result is in tolerance. The measurement method matches what the Control Plan requires. The inspector identity and date are on the form.
What gets it kicked back. Missing dimensions, even ones that look minor like thread callouts or surface finish. A measured value entered as "OK" or "pass" instead of an actual number. A measurement method shown as "visual" for a dimension that requires a CMM. Title-block tolerances applied unevenly between similar dimensions. The discipline that prevents this lives in Characteristic Accountability in AS9102 and applies one to one to PPAP Element 9 even though the standard is different.
Element 10: Records of Material and Performance Test Results
Material certifications for raw stock, performance test reports for any functional or environmental tests the print or customer specifies.
What the reviewer is looking for. Material certs that match the material specification on the print, traceable to the heat lot used on the submitted parts. Performance test reports completed on production parts, not prototype parts, with results that meet the specified criteria.
What gets it kicked back. A material cert from a different heat lot than the one the parts came from. Performance tests run on prototype tooling parts when the print requires production parts. A test report missing the lab accreditation reference that Element 12 requires.
Element 11: Initial Process Studies
Capability studies on every Special Characteristic. Per AIAG PPAP 4th Edition, Ppk on a minimum 25-subgroup, 125-piece initial run, with the customer specific minimum capability requirement applied. Cpk is for ongoing, stable, in-control production, not for initial PPAP submissions.
What the reviewer is looking for. Ppk values on every Significant or Critical characteristic. The required minimum capability index met for each. Underlying data attached, not just the summary number. Normality assessed, and a documented transform or alternate method if the distribution is non-normal.
What gets it kicked back. Cpk reported where Ppk was required. A Critical characteristic with a Ppk of 1.55 where the customer flow-down requires 1.67. Capability calculated on 60 pieces when the AIAG minimum is 125. Capability calculated on a characteristic that is not in statistical control with no notation explaining how the customer should interpret it. Cpk vs Ppk covers which index belongs in this element and why this is the single most common rejection reason.
Element 12: Qualified Laboratory Documentation
Scope of accreditation for every laboratory, internal or external, whose data appears in the package.
What the reviewer is looking for. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for external test laboratories, with the specific test on the lab's accreditation scope. Internal lab scope document for any in-house testing, including calibration records for the equipment used.
What gets it kicked back. A material test report from an outside lab whose accreditation scope does not include the specific ASTM test that was run. An internal lab certificate of analysis on testing that requires accredited external work.
Element 13: Appearance Approval Report
Required for parts with cosmetic or appearance requirements: color, grain, texture, master surface. An AAR with the customer's signed acceptance.
What the reviewer is looking for. A signed AAR on file for any part where the print or specification calls out color, finish, or appearance. Master sample referenced.
What gets it kicked back. A class A surface part submitted with no AAR. An AAR signed by the supplier with no customer signature.
Element 14: Sample Production Parts
The actual parts being submitted, in the quantity and configuration the customer specified.
What the reviewer is looking for. Sample part count matches the warrant. Serial or lot tracking on the samples ties back to the dimensional results in Element 9 and the capability data in Element 11.
What gets it kicked back. Samples that do not match the part numbers listed on the warrant. Samples that fail the customer's incoming inspection on dimensions that passed at the supplier, indicating a gauge or method gap between the two.
Element 15: Master Sample
The retained sample at the supplier, signed and dated by both the supplier and the customer, used as the reference part for the production life cycle. Some customers waive this for high-volume disposable parts.
What the reviewer is looking for. A master sample present, identified, signed off, and retained per the customer's retention requirement.
What gets it kicked back. Master sample missing entirely. Master sample retained but with no customer signature. Master sample stored in a way that allows damage or substitution.
Element 16: Checking Aids
Any fixture, gauge, jig, template, or model used to inspect the part. Documented with part number, description, calibration status, and check method.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every checking aid referenced in the Control Plan listed. Calibration records on file for measurement aids. Drawings or photographs of custom fixtures.
What gets it kicked back. A custom fixture used on a Special Characteristic with no documentation. A go/no-go gauge with no calibration record. A CMM program referenced in the Control Plan with no version control.
Element 17: Customer-Specific Requirements
Evidence that any requirement the customer added beyond the AIAG PPAP defaults is satisfied. This is where the customer's PPAP manual or supplier quality manual flows in.
What the reviewer is looking for. A customer-specific requirements checklist signed off for the customer in question. Examples: minimum Ppk thresholds tighter than AIAG defaults, run-at-rate requirements, packaging specifications, label format requirements, IMDS material disclosure submission, special PSW formatting.
What gets it kicked back. A PSW filled out on the AIAG template when the customer requires their own warrant form. IMDS not submitted on a part the customer requires it for. Run-at-rate performed at less than the contracted production rate.
Element 18: Part Submission Warrant
The cover sheet. Part number, drawing revision, customer, supplier, level, submission reason, results summary, signature block.
What the reviewer is looking for. Every field populated. Drawing revision matches Element 1. Reason for submission matches the triggering event. The supplier signature is from an authorized quality role.
What gets it kicked back. Reason for submission marked "Other" with no explanation. Drawing revision on the warrant that does not match the design record. Submission level on the warrant that does not match what the customer asked for. An unsigned warrant.
What Reviewers Actually Use This For
The checklist above is roughly what a customer SQE has in front of them during the disposition review. The reviewer is not looking for engineering depth. They are looking for evidence that the package is internally consistent, that every Special Characteristic from the print propagated forward through PFMEA, Control Plan, MSA, dimensional results, and capability study, and that every revision letter agrees with every other revision letter.
The four rejection categories that account for most Interim dispositions are predictable.
- Revision mismatches between the design record, the change documents, the warrant, and the documents referenced inside other documents. Element 1, 2, 7, 6, and 18.
- Special Characteristic propagation failures, where a Special on the print appears in some downstream documents and not others. Element 4, 6, 7, 8, 11.
- Capability index mistakes, almost always Cpk reported instead of Ppk or a Critical characteristic missing the customer specific minimum threshold. Element 11.
- Measurement system gaps, where a characteristic was measured on a gauge with no MSA or with %GRR out of acceptance. Element 8 versus Element 9.
A package built against this list, where every Special Characteristic is traced end to end and every revision is verified before the warrant is signed, gets the Full disposition on the first pass.
How the Submission Stays Consistent
Most teams running PPAP through spreadsheets and folders fail the consistency check not because the engineers do not know the work, but because the four to seven documents that have to agree are maintained separately and only line up at submission time by manual review. A purpose-built PPAP workspace solves this by making the Special Characteristic the spine: when it is flagged on the print in Element 1, it propagates into the PFMEA, the Control Plan, the MSA, the dimensional results, and the capability study automatically, and any revision change in one place flags the others.
That is the design behind QualityEngineer.ai's PPAP package workflow and the document cascade behind it. The June 16 webinar Deliver Your PPAP Right the First Time walks through this in a live submission, element by element, with a focus on the four rejection categories above.
For the bridge into the aerospace lane where this same evidence ends up in an AS9102 FAI binder instead of an AIAG package, see FAI vs PPAP: When Aerospace Suppliers Need First Article Inspection, PPAP, or Both.
Related Reading
- What is PPAP? A Complete Guide for Quality Engineers for the 18 elements at 101 depth and the AIAG submission levels
- PPAP Software: How Purpose-Built Tools Reduce Submission Rework for the platform side of submission consistency
- Cpk vs Ppk: Which Process Capability Index to Use for PPAP for the Element 11 index selection that drives the most common rejection
- Gauge R&R Acceptance Criteria for the Element 8 thresholds that gate Element 9 and Element 11
- Control Plan in Manufacturing for the Element 7 structure reviewers actually audit
- Process FMEA Practical Guide for the Element 6 detail that propagates into Element 7
- FAI vs PPAP: When Aerospace Suppliers Need First Article Inspection, PPAP, or Both for the aerospace bridge
About the Author
Daniel Crouse is the founder of QualityEngineer.ai and has spent 15 plus years in supplier quality, PPAP, and manufacturing systems. He built QualityEngineer.ai because quality engineers deserve better tools than Excel.
