Nine o'clock on a Tuesday, the package is almost done. Design records, PFMEA, control plan, MSA, dimensional results, capability study, all in the folder. The last thing outstanding is Element 10, and the engineer has the supplier's mill certificate sitting in an email from three weeks ago. It says 4140 alloy steel, meets ASTM A29. Good enough, drop it in the folder, close the laptop.
Two weeks later the package comes back. The heat lot number on the cert does not match the heat lot stamped on the parts. There is a hardness callout on the print, Rockwell C 28 to 32 after heat treat, and nothing in the folder shows a test against it. The mill cert proved the raw bar stock met a material spec. It proved nothing about what happened to that bar stock after it went through the shop, and the print asked for both.
This is Element 10, Records of Material and Performance Test Results, and it fails more often than any element without a dimension attached to it. There is no gauge to run, no chart to plot, so it gets treated as a filing task instead of an engineering one. It is not. This post covers what actually has to be in the folder, why a matching cert alone is not a passing element, what a Design Verification Plan and Report has to show, and how QualityEngineer.ai keeps the material record tied to the part it describes instead of living in a supplier's email thread.
What is PPAP Element 10, and what does it require?
Element 10 is the AIAG PPAP 4th Edition element that certifies the material properties and product performance of the parts being submitted, separate from the dimensional results in Element 9 and the capability study in Element 11. It covers two distinct categories of evidence, and a passing submission needs both when both apply.
Material certifications. Mill certs, coating certs, and supplier certificates of analysis for every material and every material condition used on the part, referencing the specific material standard called out on the print, whether that is an ASTM, SAE, or ISO designation. A steel bracket with a zinc plating callout needs a cert for the steel and a separate cert for the plating.
Performance and functional test results. Test data confirming the part meets performance requirements the print or the customer specifies: pressure, temperature cycling, vibration, durability, salt spray, or any other functional or environmental test. Where a Design Verification Plan and Report exists for the part, DVP&R results belong here too, each line item showing the test standard, the method, and the result measured against the specification.
Both categories only apply where the print calls for them. A simple machined bracket with no coating and no functional spec might need nothing more than a raw material cert. A housing with a pressure rating, a plated finish, and a salt spray requirement needs all three lines of evidence, each traceable back to the parts actually submitted.
Why does the heat lot number matter more than the certificate itself?
Because a certificate proves a claim about a batch of material, and Element 10 is not asking whether that batch ever existed. It is asking whether the specific parts in this submission came from it. A mill cert with the right alloy, the right standard, and the right supplier signature is worthless as Element 10 evidence if the heat lot or batch number on the cert does not trace to the heat lot on the parts that were built.
This is the single most common finding on the element, and it is not a paperwork technicality. A supplier who submits a generic cert without a lot number, or a cert for a different heat than the one the parts came from, has not actually demonstrated that the material in your hands meets the specification. They have demonstrated that some material somewhere did, at some point. The reviewer's job is to check the lot number on the cert against the lot number or traceability record on the part, and a mismatch is a rejection regardless of how legitimate the certificate itself looks.
The same logic applies to test reports. A DVP&R result run on prototype parts or on material from a different lot than the significant production run does not certify the parts in the box, for the same reason a capability study on prototype parts does not satisfy Element 11. Element 10 evidence has to be time indexed and lot indexed to the actual submission, not to the process in general.
What does a Design Verification Plan and Report have to show?
A DVP&R is not a pass or fail stamp. It is a structured record connecting each performance requirement to the test that verified it, and a reviewer expects to see the full chain for every line: the test name, the specification or standard it was run against, the acceptance criteria, the measured result, the lab that ran it, and an explicit pass or fail call.
A test result that says "OK" or "passed" with no numeric value and no reference to the acceptance criteria is not evidence, it is an assertion. The reviewer cannot tell whether "OK" means the part cleared the spec by a wide margin or scraped by on the edge of the tolerance, and a marginal result reported as a clean pass with no note of the margin is one of the AIAG-recognized non-conformance patterns on this element. If a salt spray requirement calls for 96 hours with no red rust and the test ran for 72 hours before someone called it good, the report has to say so, not round up.
Coverage matters as much as the individual results. A DVP&R that runs five of the eight performance requirements called out on the print and is silent on the other three is not a partial pass, it is missing evidence for three requirements, and a reviewer reads a gap in the plan the same way they read a missing dimension in Element 9: as something that was never checked, not something that must have been fine.
What gets Element 10 kicked back?
The pattern across rejections is consistent. Every one of these is a place where the evidence claims more than it actually proves.
Generic certs with no lot traceability. A material certificate with no heat, batch, or lot number connecting it to the submitted parts. The most common finding on the element.
Test results from a non-accredited lab. A performance test run at a lab with no accreditation on file, or accredited for a different scope than the test performed. This is what Element 12, Qualified Laboratory Documentation, exists to back up, and a test result with nothing behind it in Element 12 is unsupported regardless of how clean the number looks.
No test standard referenced. A result reported without naming the ASTM, SAE, or ISO method it was tested against. Without the standard, a reviewer cannot evaluate whether the test method matches what the print actually calls for.
Marginal results reported as a clean pass. A test that squeaked past the acceptance criteria with no note explaining the margin or whether it warrants further investigation.
Certs not time indexed to the production run. Material or test data that predates the significant production run by enough that it cannot represent the lot the parts came from.
Missing coverage for secondary materials or coatings. A cert for the base material with nothing for the plating, the coating, or a bonded secondary material called out on the same print.
No pass or fail stated. A report that lists a measured value with no explicit conclusion against the acceptance criteria, leaving the reviewer to make the call the supplier should have made.
No reference sample retained. For material testing in particular, no archived reference sample tied to the lot, which matters when a later field failure needs a physical sample to test against.
Every one of these is the same root failure as the five kickback patterns on Element 11: the evidence exists, but it cannot support the specific claim the element is making about the specific parts in the box.
Where does Element 10 sit against Element 8 and Element 12?
Element 10 does not stand alone. It is the middle link in a three-element chain, and a reviewer checks all three together because a strong result on one means nothing if the links on either side are missing.
Element 8, Measurement System Analysis, qualifies the gauges used to generate a test result. A performance test measured on an uncalibrated or unqualified instrument produces a number Element 10 cannot use, the same way an unqualified gauge poisons a capability index in Element 11. Element 12, Qualified Laboratory Documentation, qualifies the lab and the specific test on that lab's accreditation scope. A DVP&R line item run at an outside lab is only as credible as the accreditation behind it. Element 10 sits between the two: it is the result itself, and the result is only as good as the instrument that measured it and the lab that ran it.
A reviewer who finds an Element 10 test result with no matching Element 8 study for the gauge involved, or no Element 12 accreditation for the lab, does not read Element 10 as passing on its own merits. They read it as unsupported, because the chain that makes the number trustworthy has a break in it.
MSA is one of the six heavy elements built live in our 30 minute PPAP session, alongside the warrant, design records, process FMEA, control plan, and dimensional results. Watch the replay. Free, no signup.
How does QualityEngineer.ai handle material and performance test results?
The reason Element 10 goes soft in a spreadsheet workflow is that a mill cert PDF and a DVP&R spreadsheet are two files with no connection to each other or to the part they describe. Nothing forces the lot number on one to match the lot number on the other, and nothing flags a requirement on the print that neither file covers.
In the Package module, Element 10 opens as its own page against the request, structured around the DVP&R itself rather than a document you attach and hope is complete. Each test gets its own row: test name, spec reference, acceptance criteria, measured result, the lab that ran it, and a pass, fail, or pending call, entered directly rather than typed into a separate report and re-keyed. Adding a test is adding a row, not authoring a new document, and the row is attached to the part number the request is already tracking.
Material certificates attach the same way every other piece of evidence attaches in the platform: upload the cert to Element 10 directly, or link a document you already generated for the part instead of uploading it twice. There is no separate cert-management tool to keep in sync with the submission, because the cert lives on the element it belongs to.
The moment a test record is saved against Element 10, the element's status moves off "required" automatically, the same status transition that runs across every element in the package. And Element 10 gets the identical document-attachment check the Package module runs against every other element before a warrant can claim the package complete: an element marked submitted with no attached certificate and no DVP&R record behind it is flagged as unbacked, the same false-complete problem the platform catches on an appearance approval report with no AAR document sitting behind the checkbox. A supplier certifying material properties with nothing to show for it does not get to look done.
A pre-submission QA pass for Element 10
Run this before the package ships. It catches the eight patterns above in about the same fifteen minutes a capability check takes on Element 11.
- Confirm scope. Every material, coating, and functional requirement called out on the print has a corresponding line of evidence in the folder. Nothing on the print is silently uncovered.
- Confirm lot traceability. The heat, batch, or lot number on every material cert matches the lot the submitted parts were actually built from.
- Confirm the test standard. Every DVP&R line names the ASTM, SAE, or ISO method it was tested against, not a generic "tested per spec."
- Confirm the pass or fail call. Every result states an explicit conclusion against its acceptance criteria, not just a measured value.
- Confirm lab accreditation. Every outside lab used has a matching accreditation scope on file in Element 12 for the specific test performed.
- Confirm the measurement system. Any test relying on a gauge or instrument has that instrument backed by an acceptable MSA in Element 8.
- Confirm production timing. Certs and test data are indexed to the significant production run, not to prototype parts or an earlier lot.
- Confirm marginal results are flagged. Anything that passed near the edge of its acceptance criteria carries a note, not a silent clean pass.
If all eight hold, Element 10 survives the first read. A material or performance finding at this stage does not cost a day of retyping, the way a warrant checkbox does. It usually costs a new test, and sometimes a new heat of material, which is why it is worth catching before the package leaves the building.
FAQ
What is PPAP Element 10?
Element 10 is Records of Material and Performance Test Results, the AIAG PPAP 4th Edition element that certifies the material properties and functional performance of the submitted parts. It covers material certifications for every material and coating called out on the print, plus performance and functional test results such as Design Verification Plan and Report data, each traceable to the specific production lot the parts came from.
Is a material certificate enough to satisfy Element 10?
Only if the heat, batch, or lot number on the certificate matches the lot the submitted parts were built from, and only if there are no functional or performance requirements on the print that also need test evidence. A generic cert with no lot traceability, or a cert covering only the base material when the print also calls out a coating or a functional spec, is an incomplete submission even when the certificate itself is legitimate.
What is the difference between Element 8, Element 10, and Element 12?
Element 8 qualifies the measurement systems used to generate results. Element 10 is the material and performance test results themselves. Element 12 qualifies the laboratory and its accreditation scope for any outside testing. A test result in Element 10 is only as trustworthy as the gauge behind it in Element 8 and the lab accreditation behind it in Element 12, and a reviewer checks all three together.
Does every PPAP submission need a DVP&R?
Only when the part carries functional or performance requirements beyond dimensional conformance, whether from the print, a customer specification, or an applicable industry standard. A simple dimensional part with no functional callout may need nothing more than material certification. A part with a pressure, environmental, or durability requirement needs DVP&R evidence covering each of those requirements individually.
What IATF 16949 clause covers material and performance testing?
Clause 8.6.2, Layout inspection and functional testing, requires a functional verification to applicable customer engineering material and performance standards for each product as specified in the control plan, in addition to the dimensional layout inspection. The frequency is set by the customer's specific requirements rather than the clause itself, and the control plan is where that frequency and method are documented.
