PPAP Dimensional Results and Ballooned Drawing Traceability

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. Lock the characteristic listUse the same balloon/characteristic identity established from the current design record.
2. Confirm the sample requirementUse the agreed sample quantity. The source states five parts unless otherwise directed by SDE, so customer direction takes precedence.
3. Measure every applicable requirementInclude dimensions, drawing notes, specifications and other characteristics rather than only the easiest variable dimensions.
4. Report actual evidenceWhere the requirement calls for a numerical or descriptive result, report that result; do not replace it with a generic pass/fail entry.
5. Highlight special characteristicsMake them easy to find and cross-reference them to capability/control evidence.
6. Control exceptionsClearly identify any nonconformance and attach the approved deviation or treat the submission as not conforming.
7. Approve the recordEnsure the inspection sheets are legible, understandable, in the required language/unit format and signed/approved as required.

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.

• Ballooned customer drawing or controlled characteristic library
• Dimensional-result sheet with actual values
• Evidence that drawing notes/specification requirements are included
• Agreed sample quantity
• Special-characteristic highlighting
• Part number and engineering revision
• Inspection method/equipment reference where required
• Approval/signature status
• Deviation for any accepted nonconformance

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Are the dimensions references on a ballooned customer drawing or documented within a characteristics library?
• 2.If reported from ballooned drawing is there evidence that all specification and other requirements were documented?
• 3.Are the correct numbers of parts laid out? (Five (5) parts unless other wise directed by SDE)
• 4.Do all requirements, including drawing notes have a response (pass/fail statement is unacceptable)?
• 5.Are all Special Characteristics highlighted?
• 6.Do results meet all Design Record Requirements?
• 7.Are any nonconformance highlighted in the report? if yes deviation or PPAP rejection!
• 8.Is layout result legible and understandable?
• 9.Are the Dimension Result sheets completely in English?
• 10.Are the inspection sheets approved and signed?
• 11.Is all reporting in customer format (English or Metric)?
• 12.Is all reporting against Organization specification?
• 13.Results indication print location or specification location.

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.

• A pass/fail entry replaces an actual measurement
• Some drawing notes have no corresponding result
• Balloon numbers do not match the current design record
• Special characteristics are buried among normal characteristics
• The sample quantity is lower than the agreed requirement without waiver
• A result is out of specification but the package contains no deviation
• Report units differ from the Organization/customer reporting convention

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: 2.2.9 Dimensional Results. Approximate source page coverage: 9-9.

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.