# PPAP 18 Elements Supplier Submission Reference > Source: https://netray.co/tools/ppap-18-elements-supplier-submission-reference > Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems. > Section: Free Tools ## Short answer A reference of the 18 PPAP elements, what each proves, what evidence to expect and what a reviewer should check. ## Category quality ## Industry Automotive ## Audience - Supplier quality engineer - Buyer - Quality manager ## Tool **Kind:** worksheet **Mode:** reference **Columns:** #### No. **Key:** no **Type:** number #### PPAP element **Key:** element **Type:** text #### What it proves **Key:** proves **Type:** text #### Typical supplier evidence **Key:** evidence **Type:** text #### Reviewer question **Key:** review **Type:** text **Rows:** **No:** 1 **Element:** Design records **Proves:** The supplier works to the current released drawing or model **Evidence:** Customer drawing, ballooned drawing, CAD data, BOM **Review:** Is the revision level the same as on the PO? **No:** 2 **Element:** Authorized engineering change documents **Proves:** Changes not yet on the drawing are authorized **Evidence:** Engineering change notice, deviation approval **Review:** Is every change since the last approval listed? **No:** 3 **Element:** Customer engineering approval **Proves:** The customer engineering function accepted the part where required **Evidence:** Trial approval, engineering sign-off **Review:** Was approval required and is it attached? **No:** 4 **Element:** Design FMEA **Proves:** Design risks were assessed by the design owner **Evidence:** DFMEA document, only if supplier is design responsible **Review:** Do high-risk items link to special characteristics? **No:** 5 **Element:** Process flow diagram **Proves:** The full process is understood from receiving to shipping **Evidence:** Flow diagram showing inspection and rework steps **Review:** Does it match the PFMEA and control plan step by step? **No:** 6 **Element:** Process FMEA **Proves:** Process failure risks were assessed and ranked **Evidence:** PFMEA with severity, occurrence, detection and actions **Review:** Are high-severity items covered by prevention or detection controls? **No:** 7 **Element:** Control plan **Proves:** Controls exist for every important characteristic **Evidence:** Control plan with method, sample size, frequency, reaction plan **Review:** Does every special characteristic have a gauge and a reaction plan? **No:** 8 **Element:** Measurement system analysis studies **Proves:** Gauges are capable of measuring the characteristics **Evidence:** Gauge R and R, bias, linearity, stability, attribute studies **Review:** Are gauge studies done for each special characteristic gauge? **No:** 9 **Element:** Dimensional results **Proves:** Sample parts meet every dimension on the drawing **Evidence:** Layout report with actual measurements from production parts **Review:** Is every ballooned dimension measured, with results from several cavities or tools? **No:** 10 **Element:** Records of material and performance test results **Proves:** Materials and functional requirements are met **Evidence:** Material certificates, lab reports, performance test data **Review:** Are the tests those required by the drawing and customer specification? **No:** 11 **Element:** Initial process studies **Proves:** The process is stable and capable on key characteristics **Evidence:** Control charts, Cpk or Ppk results for special characteristics **Review:** Do results meet the customer capability requirement and is the data from a significant production run? **No:** 12 **Element:** Qualified laboratory documentation **Proves:** Testing was done by an acceptable lab **Evidence:** Lab scope of accreditation, for example ISO/IEC 17025 **Review:** Does the lab scope cover the tests performed? **No:** 13 **Element:** Appearance approval report **Proves:** Colour, grain and surface meet the appearance requirement **Evidence:** Signed appearance approval report with master sample reference **Review:** Applies only to parts with appearance requirements. Is it signed? **No:** 14 **Element:** Sample production parts **Proves:** Parts from the production process were provided **Evidence:** Sample parts as requested, labelled with part and date **Review:** Were parts made with production tooling and process? **No:** 15 **Element:** Master sample **Proves:** A reference sample is retained for comparison **Evidence:** Signed and dated retained sample **Review:** Is it stored and who has access? **No:** 16 **Element:** Checking aids **Proves:** Fixtures and gauges used for inspection are verified **Evidence:** Gauge drawing, calibration records, dimensional report on the aid **Review:** Is the aid calibrated and its revision tied to the part revision? **No:** 17 **Element:** Customer-specific requirements **Proves:** Requirements particular to the customer are met **Evidence:** Records listed in customer-specific requirements documents **Review:** Did the supplier check the customer portal and not only the drawing? **No:** 18 **Element:** Part submission warrant (PSW) **Proves:** The supplier declares that all requirements are met **Evidence:** Signed PSW with reason for submission, level and weights **Review:** Does the PSW match the dimensional and material results and is it signed by an authorized person? **Notes:** This is a summary of the structure of the 18 elements, not the AIAG manual. Submission levels 1 to 5 decide which elements are submitted and which are only retained. Always use the current AIAG PPAP manual and your customer-specific requirements. ## Content **Intro:** PPAP, the Production Part Approval Process, is how automotive customers confirm a supplier can make a part to specification at the quoted rate. This reference lists the 18 elements with what each proves and what a reviewer should ask. **Sections:** #### How to use this reference **Body:** Search for an element such as control plan or gauge to see the evidence normally expected. Use the reviewer question column as a prompt when you open a supplier submission, and export the list to Excel as a review sheet with a pass or fail column of your own. Supplier quality engineers can send the list to a new supplier so both sides share the same expectation before the submission is due. **Bullets:** - Filter by keyword such as FMEA, gauge or material - Use the reviewer question column during review - Export to Excel to build a review record - Confirm the submission level on the PO or SQA letter #### Submission levels **Body:** Level 1 submits the warrant only. Level 2 submits the warrant with product samples and limited supporting data. Level 3 submits the warrant with samples and complete supporting data, and is the default unless the customer says otherwise. Level 4 submits the warrant and other items defined by the customer. Level 5 keeps complete data at the supplier's site for review there. Whatever the level, the supplier must keep all 18 elements, or note which do not apply. #### How to read a submission **Body:** Start with the PSW and check the part number, revision, reason for submission and signature. Then confirm the dimensional results cover every ballooned dimension, the control plan covers every special characteristic, and the PFMEA and flow diagram agree with each other. Finally check capability data on special characteristics against the customer target, commonly a Cpk of 1.33 for initial studies and 1.67 for safety or significant characteristics, if the customer sets those numbers. #### Common mistakes **Body:** Submissions are often rejected for revision mismatch, dimensional results from a single cavity, missing gauge studies, a PFMEA that never changed from the quote stage, or a control plan that lists no reaction plan. Another frequent miss is submitting data from a short run that does not represent normal production variation. Ask for the run size and dates before you accept capability results. **Bullets:** - Check revision on every document - Ask for all cavities or tools - Look for a live PFMEA, not a template copy - Check run size behind capability data **Cta:** If you track PPAP status in spreadsheets, we can build an agent that reads your ERP and quality records and reports which supplier parts have no approved submission on file. **Faq:** #### Is PPAP only for automotive? **Answer:** PPAP comes from the automotive industry through AIAG, but similar approvals are used elsewhere. Aerospace uses first article inspection under AS9102 for a comparable purpose. Many industrial buyers borrow PPAP elements for supplier approval of new parts. #### What does PSW stand for? **Answer:** PSW means part submission warrant. It is the cover document where the supplier declares that the part meets all customer requirements, lists the submission level and reason for submission, and signs. The warrant on its own proves nothing without the supporting data. #### Which PPAP level should I choose? **Answer:** Level 3 is the default for most automotive customers. Use a lower level for low-risk catalog parts and a higher level for new suppliers, safety parts or after a quality escape. The customer normally dictates the level in the supplier manual or purchase order. #### When is a new PPAP required? **Answer:** Typical triggers are a new part, a design change, a new tool or process, a move to a new site, a change of sub-supplier, or tooling inactive for a long period. The customer-specific requirements list the exact triggers, so confirm them in your supplier manual. ## Search terms PPAP 18 elements, PPAP requirements list, PPAP checklist excel, PPAP submission levels, production part approval process elements, PPAP review checklist, PPAP documents list, PSW warrant requirements --- Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json