PPAP packages for automotive parts, assembled from your records for your quality engineer to sign.

A new part, an engineering change, a moved tool or a new resin source, and the customer wants a PPAP at the level its PO or supplier manual names. Your quality engineer gathers the ballooned drawing and the layouts, the resin data and lab reports, the process flow, PFMEA and control plan, gage studies and capability data, plus the appearance report on a textured or colored part, then fills the Part Submission Warrant and orders it all the way that customer wants.

In the proof of concept, AI goes back through copies of submissions you already made. It drafts the warrant from those records, sorts the elements into the customer's order and writes a check sheet: what is present, what is missing, and where two documents disagree, such as a drawing revision on the warrant that differs from the one on the layout. Nothing is measured, signed or sent.

The level and the edition set the contents. AIAG still lists PPAP in its fourth edition, a second printing from November 2009, while APQP reached a third edition in March 2024 beside a new, separate Control Plan manual. Ford's customer-specific requirements for PPAP, effective June 15, 2026, are written for use with that fourth edition. The warrant offers five levels, from the warrant alone, with an appearance report for designated items, at Level 1, to complete data reviewed at your plant at Level 5, and supplier manuals such as Prestolite's default to Level 3: samples and complete supporting data. The draft builds only what the requested level and the customer's own rules call for.

The warrant asks a molder's questions. Next to part weight in kilograms, its materials block asks whether customer-required substances of concern were reported, by IMDS or another customer format, and wants the IMDS module ID, version and date transmitted. It asks whether polymeric parts carry the right ISO marking codes: the ISO 11469 mark built from ISO 1043 symbols between reversed angle brackets, such as >PP-MD30< for a mineral-filled polypropylene. So the draft compares the marking callout on the drawing with the resin in your material records. The reasons for submission include a tool transfer, replacement, refurbishment or addition and tooling inactive for over a year, and one automotive supplier's form asks whether each customer tool is tagged and numbered.

The numbers come from a real run, and they stay yours. Parts for the package come from what AIAG calls a significant production run: at least 300 consecutive parts unless the customer agrees otherwise, on production tooling and at rate. Layouts are measured to the customer's ballooned print, and one supplier manual rejects any layout made to the supplier's own drawing. Prestolite's and Ford's published requirements both accept an initial process study at a Ppk of 1.67 or more. The draft copies each value exactly as your CMM or lab report gives it, marks a result outside tolerance or a study below the customer's limit, and changes none of them.

Appearance, molding and risk bring papers of their own. An appearance approval report covers parts with color, grain or surface requirements; the form carries tristimulus color data (DL*, Da*, Db*, DE*), gloss and a pre-texture evaluation ending in correct and proceed, correct and resubmit, or approved to texture. Ford now accepts only an electronic eAAR, with a label on the part. Molding is an AIAG special process with its own assessment, CQI-23, now in a third edition with eight process tables, and some customers encourage a current self-assessment in the package. PFMEAs written to the AIAG and VDA handbook of June 2019 rank risk by Action Priority, severity first, instead of the old risk priority number, and the draft keeps the method the customer asks for.

Each customer adds rules, and your reviewer knows them. IATF's oversight site posts customer-specific requirements automaker by automaker. Ford, for one, takes as evidence of material reporting only an approved dashboard entry for the part number with its PPAP approval column at yes, and notes that a lower-tier supplier may need a Tier 1 to get it into Ford's supplier portal. Retention differs too: AIAG's rule is the part's active life plus one calendar year, while another supplier's PPAP form asks for end of life plus at least five years. The owner names your reviewer, the person who knows this work best, usually the quality engineer who signs warrants today. They check each draft against the package that was approved: level, element order, warrant fields, every flag and every gap the customer later found.

After a yes, each new PPAP request, whether from a launch, a change or a tool move, gets a draft package and a check sheet as it comes in, for about 30 days.

Your quality engineer reviews every element, signs the warrant and submits the package the way each customer requires. Nothing reaches a customer from a draft, and the scoring table stays in use through the live month.