PPAP Part Submission Warrant (PSW), Approval Status and Bulk Material

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. Complete the warrant against the agreed submissionMake sure part identity, submission reason, requested status and supporting elements agree with the actual PPAP package.
2. Explain the reason for submissionUse sufficient detail to tell the approver what is new, changed, corrected or being resubmitted.
3. Control interim approval explicitlyIf interim approval is requested, identify the deficiency, action plan and timeline for resubmission rather than presenting the package as fully approved.
4. Match the submission levelFor Level 3, the source expects all 16 elements with explanation for anything not provided in full; for Level 2 or 4, clearly identify the specific elements being submitted.
5. Cover every production sourceWhere multiple tools, cavities or equivalent sources are used, provide separate dimensional and capability evidence for each applicable source.
6. Obtain supplier authorizationThe source expects an electronic or hand signature from the supplier.
7. Treat bulk material separately where applicableFor qualifying bulk materials used in production parts, the source expects a completed bulk-material checklist and warrant.

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.

• Completed PSW with all required fields
• Detailed reason for submission
• Requested approval/interim status
• Deficiency/action/timeline for interim approval
• Submission-level element list
• Explanation for missing/not-full elements
• Resubmission change/correction/addition summary
• Tool/cavity-specific dimensional and capability evidence
• Supplier signature
• Bulk-material checklist and warrant where applicable

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Is the warrant to the standard PPAP 4th edition or truck industry templates or equivalent?
• 2.Is the PSW according and compliant to AIAG PPAP 4th edition?
• 3.Are ALL fields completed as per PPAP instructions “Appendix A – Completion of the Part Submission Warrant (PSW)”, as found on page 9 of the PPAP 4 th edition manual?
• 4.Is proper detail provided for “Reason for Submission”?
• 5.If submission is for Interim Approval is the PSW clearly identified as requesting “Interim Approval” with deficiencies noted, clearly defined action plan and timeline for resubmission?
• 6.If resubmissions are changes, corrections and additions clearly identified.
• 7.If Level 3 submission are all 16 elements provided along with full explanation of any that are not provided in full?
• 8.If Level 2 or 4 are specific elements clearly identified for the submission?
• 9.If multiple tools/cavities/ETC. are used the PPAP shall have separate dimensional and capability for each tool or cavity.
• 10.Is there an electronic or hand signature from the supplier?

• 1.A completed bulk material checklist and warrant shall be in place for all bulk material used in production parts. (See page 36 of AIAG PPAP Manual)

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.

• PSW says “initial submission” but the evidence is clearly a resubmission
• Interim approval is requested with no defined deficiency/action/timeline
• Level 2/4 package does not identify which elements are included
• One PSW covers multiple part numbers without approved arrangement
• Multiple cavities exist but evidence is pooled so individual source performance is unknown
• Supplier signature is missing
• Bulk material is used in production but the required checklist/warrant is absent

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: 2.2.18 Part Submission Warrant (PSW) Assessment, 2.2.18 Part Submission Warrant (PSW) Assessment – Bulk. Approximate source page coverage: 14-15.

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.