PPAP and the submission package

A PPAP is not a statement about the parts in the box. It is a statement about the process that made them — running at rate, on production tooling, in the production location, with production people. Good parts produced by heroic means prove nothing about what will be shipped next Tuesday.

A submission package laid out on a table: a signed part submission warrant on top of a tabbed folder of dimensional and material reports, a ballooned engineering drawing marked with numbered circles, two identified master sample parts in labelled bags, and a laptop showing a capability chart. — The warrant on top is one page. Everything under it is the reason the one page can be signed.

The eighteen elements

A diagram of the eighteen PPAP elements arranged as a grid of labelled cards, each naming the element and a short note on what evidence satisfies it. The elements shown are design records, engineering change documents, customer engineering approval, design FMEA, process flow diagram, process FMEA, control plan, measurement system analysis studies, dimensional results, material and performance test results, initial process studies, qualified laboratory documentation, appearance approval report, sample production parts, master sample, checking aids, customer specific requirements, and part submission warrant. Arrows on the left group the first seven as outputs of the planning phases, the middle group as evidence from the production trial run, and the final card, the part submission warrant, is drawn larger and separated, with arrows from every other card converging on it to show that it summarises them all. — Seventeen pieces of evidence, and one page that declares them all to be true. The arrows only point one way.

Group	Elements
From planning	Design records, change documents, engineering approval, DFMEA, process flow, PFMEA, control plan
From measurement	MSA studies, dimensional results, material and performance tests, initial process studies, lab documentation
Physical	Appearance approval, sample parts, master sample, checking aids
Contractual	Customer specific requirements, part submission warrant

Three of them are quietly the ones that fail review:

Dimensional results — the drawing must be ballooned, every dimension numbered, and every balloon must have a result. A statement that the parts conform is not a dimensional result. The ballooning exists so nothing can be quietly omitted.
MSA studies — every other number in the package was measured. An inadequate measurement system invalidates all of them simultaneously, which is why this element sits before the results it validates. See MSA and gauge R and R.
Master sample — the physical reference for the approved condition. Months later, when there is a disagreement about what was approved, the drawing describes the intention and the master is the answer.

Levels change what you send, not what you do

A diagram comparing the five PPAP submission levels. Five columns are shown, each listing what is sent to the customer and what is retained at the supplier. Level one sends the warrant only, with appearance approval where applicable. Level two sends the warrant with product samples and limited supporting data. Level three, marked as the default, sends the warrant with product samples and complete supporting data. Level four sends the warrant and whatever the customer defines. Level five sends nothing but makes the warrant, samples and complete data available for review at the supplier's manufacturing location. Beneath all five columns a single wide band labelled all eighteen elements completed and retained runs continuously across every level, with a note that the level changes only what travels. — The band across the bottom does not change. That is the whole point of the diagram.

Level	Sent to customer
1	Warrant only
2	Warrant, samples, limited data
3	Warrant, samples, complete data — the default
4	Warrant plus whatever the customer defines
5	Reviewed at the supplier’s site

What the warrant certifies

The part submission warrant is the supplier’s declaration, not something the customer issues. It says: the requirements are understood, the results conform, and the parts were made under production conditions.

Signing it while a dimension is out of tolerance, without recording that as a deviation, is a false declaration and is treated as one. It carries a name and a date.

Status	Means
Approved	Ship normally
Interim approval	Ship a defined quantity or period under agreed containment, with a corrective action plan and an expiry date
Rejected	Do not ship; correct and resubmit

Resubmission triggers

The list is deliberately broad, because each item changes the process that was approved:

Design change
Process or method change
Tooling change, refurbishment or transfer
Material or material source change
Manufacturing location change
Sub-supplier change
Tooling inactive beyond a specified period

The two that get missed are moving tooling to another plant and changing the sub-supplier of something peripheral like a coating or a fastener. Both feel internal. Both are notifiable, and shipping after an unnotified change is among the fastest routes to a special status under IATF 16949.

Where the package comes from

What to take away

PPAP demonstrates the process, at rate, on production tooling — not the parts in the box.
All eighteen elements are completed and retained at every level.
The level changes what you send, nothing else. Level 3 is the default.
Balloon the drawing; every balloon needs a result.
MSA comes first — a bad gauge invalidates every other number in the package.
The warrant is the supplier’s declaration, with a name on it.
Interim approval has containment, a plan and an expiry date.
Repeated interims mean the problem was never being fixed.
Tooling transfer and sub-supplier change are notifiable, and are the two most often missed.
The master sample is the physical record of what was approved.
A PPAP is a by-product of APQP done properly, not a task at the end.