Quality & Qualification
What Your First Article Report Should Actually Tell You
A First Article that passes isn't the same as a process that repeats. Here's what a PPAP or AS9102 submission is really supposed to prove — and what to look for before a program goes to volume.
A First Article Inspection gets treated, more often than not, like a box to check before a program can move forward. The part gets measured, the report gets stamped, the PO gets released. That's not wrong, it's just missing the point of why the requirement exists in the first place. A First Article isn't there to prove that one good part came off the machine. It's there to prove that the process behind it will keep producing that part, correctly, at volume, months and revisions from now.
That distinction matters more on precision work than almost anywhere else. There's no catalog part to fall back on and no prior production history to lean on the first time a print runs. The First Article is often the only data point a buyer has before committing to a full production quantity.
PPAP and AS9102 Aren't the Same Form
Automotive programs generally call out PPAP — Production Part Approval Process, built around the AIAG framework, with up to eighteen elements depending on submission level, from design records and process flow diagrams to control plans and measurement system analysis. Aerospace programs call out AS9102 First Article Inspection, structured around three forms: a part number accountability record, a product accountability record tying every characteristic on the print to a measured value, and a characteristic accountability record showing where each requirement is verified. The paperwork looks different. The underlying question is identical: can this specific process, on this specific tooling, produce this specific part to print, repeatably.
Worth being direct about here: CPI isn't IATF 16949 or AS9100 registered. Most of the customers who require PPAP or AS9102 documentation are — it's their quality system setting the requirement, and it reaches us as a submission format their supplier list calls for, not a certification we're claiming for ourselves.
A Common Misconception
A First Article that passes tells you a part was made correctly once. It doesn't tell you the process will hold unless the report also documents the fixturing, the work instructions, and the inspection method well enough that a second operator, on a second shift, could reproduce the same result. A report that's just a dimensional layout with passing numbers is only half the story.
Four Things a First Article Report Should Actually Show You
Before signing off on a First Article and releasing volume, these are the things worth confirming are actually in the report — not assumed.
01 — Full Dimensional Coverage
Every characteristic on the print, measured and recorded — not a sample.
A First Article is a 100% layout by definition. If a characteristic is missing from the report, it hasn't actually been verified, regardless of what the summary page says.
02 — Material Traceability
Certification tied to a specific heat or lot, not a generic spec reference.
On carbide and specialty alloys in particular, material certs need to trace back far enough to confirm the grade and condition actually used, not just the grade called out on the print.
03 — Process Documentation
Fixturing and work instructions detailed enough to reproduce the result.
If the only person who can make the part correctly is the one who ran the First Article, the process isn't actually qualified — it's dependent on one operator's memory.
04 — Revision-Level Sign-Off
Approval tied to a specific print revision, not "current print."
A First Article approved against Rev C doesn't cover Rev D. Sign-off that doesn't name a revision level creates ambiguity the next time the print changes.
When a First Article Should Be Revisited
The obvious trigger is a new part number. The less obvious ones are just as important: a tooling change, a material substitution, a new operator or shift running the job for the first time, a supplier change anywhere upstream in the material supply chain, or a long gap in production that leaves a question about whether the original setup still exists exactly as documented. Any of those resets the question a First Article is meant to answer. Treating it as a one-time event at program launch, rather than a checkpoint that gets revisited when something upstream changes, is where a lot of First Article programs quietly stop doing their job.
At CPI, First Article and PPAP submissions get built the same way regardless of whether a customer requires full documentation or a simpler dimensional report: full print coverage, material certs traced to heat and lot, and process documentation specific enough that the part can be reproduced by someone other than whoever ran it first. That's not extra paperwork for its own sake — it's the same discipline that makes a custom part something you can actually plan volume production around.
Get a Quote
Have a Program That Needs a First Article Done Right?
Send us the print and the submission requirement — PPAP, AS9102, or your own internal format. We'll tell you exactly what the report will include before the first piece is cut.
Request a Quote