Weeks of audit prep, reduced to one click

The problem

Weeks go into rebuilding evidence of things that already happened.

IATF 16949 audits and the PPAP packages each OEM requires per program need evidence that today gets rebuilt manually, risking documentation-driven nonconformances.

• When the IATF 16949 auditor arrives, or an OEM requests the PPAP package for a program, someone spends weeks reconstructing traceability, pulling people out of production and quality work to do it.
• The evidence exists, but scattered: travel cards, weld parameters, gauge changeover sign-offs, metrology spreadsheets, emails with the OEM. Four or five places, none of them organized for an auditor.
• Each OEM wants it organized its own way, so the same work is repeated per customer and per program. A Tier 1/2 with several OEMs multiplies that effort by every customer with audit or PPAP rights.
• Whatever was not written down at the time becomes a gap, and documentation gaps are among the easiest nonconformances an auditor can write.

How it fits the IRIS system

Edge captures at every change; Agents files it by standard and by OEM.

Edge captures photos and data per change; Agents organizes it by standard and by OEM, generating a dossier structured by program/period.

The dossier is assembled at the moment of the change, not the week before the audit, by the same Edge cameras that already watch the critical points. Agents only reorders what already exists, by IATF clause or by PPAP element, for whoever is asking. Anything rebuilt afterward inherits the gaps of whatever nobody wrote down, and that is where nonconformances appear.

See the full IRIS architecture →

Before and after

PPAP and audit prep today versus the dossier that builds itself

Aspect	Today	With iLEAN Edge + Agents
Preparing a PPAP package	Weeks of rebuilding	Generated from what is on record
Before/after photos of a change	Rarely taken	Captured automatically
Decision log and signatures	Scattered across emails	Timestamped per change
Same evidence for several OEMs	Rebuilt per customer	One dossier, one view per OEM
New-program qualification	Documents chased at the end	Accumulated through APQP
Documentation-driven nonconformance	Risked at every audit	Eliminated

weeks rebuilding for an audit or PPAP → zero. Risk of documentation-driven nonconformance → eliminated.

Impact estimate

Estimated impact — to validate with your own numbers.

The block below is an estimate to be validated against your plant's actual data. We put it forward so the committee has an order of magnitude; we refine it during the assessment.

• Estimated payback 6-12 months, depending on audit frequency and how often you qualify new programs.
• Weeks of rebuilding for an audit or a PPAP go to zero, and the people who did it go back to production and quality work.
• The risk of a documentation-driven nonconformance is eliminated, because a missing piece of evidence is detected when it should have been created, not on the auditor's day.
• And continuous protection of OEM accounts, which is what the next program award depends on. A clean audit history is part of how an OEM rates a supplier.

continuous protection of OEM accounts, estimated payback 6-12 months depending on audit frequency and new-program qualification cadence. *Estimate to validate*.

And the fair question from the production manager

“Isn't this a document management system with a new label?” — no: a document manager stores what someone uploads afterward, gaps included; here the evidence is captured at the change itself. Classifying each item against a PPAP element or an IATF clause is an anchored task, where the best models drop below 1.5% error [1], and quality reviews the dossier before it goes to an OEM. Nothing is sent without a person approving it.

^[1] OpenAI paper "Why Language Models Hallucinate", 2025 — on the reliability of AI in anchored tasks.