The IATF Dossier That Builds Itself

The problem

The evidence exists; it is just spread across five systems and a binder.

IATF 16949 audits and the group's own process audits require evidence that today is manually reconstructed from several systems. The auditor asks for proof, the plant shows scattered records, and a non-conformance gets raised for documentation gaps.

• IATF 16949 audits and the plant's own process audits both ask for the same thing: proof of what happened at each critical point, for a given period or unit.
• That proof exists, but it is scattered across the MES, the torque controllers, the paint lab, receiving and paper. Someone spends weeks rebuilding it before each audit.
• The auditor asks for the torque record of a VIN or the sign-off of a color change, and the plant shows fragments from different systems.
• And a documentation gap becomes a non-conformance, even when the process itself was right.

How it fits the IRIS system

Edge captures at the critical point; Agents builds the dossier by standard.

Edge captures before/after photos of each critical point (color, torque, batch) with a timestamped decision log and signature; Agents automatically organizes the dossier by certifying standard (IATF 16949, process audit), ready to download by period, VIN or batch.

Every color change, torque result or receiving batch leaves its photos, decision log and signature at the moment it happens, tied to the VIN or batch it affected. Agents files them against the requirement of the standard that asks for them. The dossier is not prepared for the audit: it already exists when the audit is announced. The quality team stops spending the weeks before a visit as archaeologists and goes back to improving the process the auditor came to see.

See the full IRIS architecture →

Before and after

Audit preparation today versus the dossier that builds itself

Aspect	Today	With iLEAN Agents
Pre-audit preparation	Weeks reconstructing evidence	Hours of review
Torque record for a given VIN	Pulled from the tool controllers	Already in the VIN's dossier
Color change sign-off	A form in a binder	Photos, owner and time per point
Organization by standard	Done by hand for each audit	IATF 16949 and process-audit views ready
Documentation gap	Found by the auditor	Detected when the evidence is missing
Download scope	Whatever can be gathered	By period, VIN or batch

Weeks of pre-audit preparation reconstructing evidence → zero. Documentation non-conformance risk → eliminated.

Impact estimate

Impact estimate — to be validated with your 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 number of process audits.
• Weeks of pre-audit preparation reduced to review time, for IATF 16949 and for the plant's own process audits.
• The risk of a non-conformance for documentation gaps disappears, because the gap is detected on the day it occurs, not on audit day.
• And the IATF 16949 certification is protected by evidence captured in the moment, not rebuilt from memory.

Estimated payback 6-12 months depending on audit frequency and number of process audits. *Figure to be validated*. (Payback 6-12 months · protects IATF 16949 certification)

And the fair question from the production manager

“Isn't this just a document management system with a new name?” — the difference is when the evidence is born. A document system stores what someone uploads afterwards; here the photo and the decision log are captured at the critical point, and filing them against a requirement is an anchored task where the best models drop below 1.5% error [1]. The quality manager reviews the dossier before it goes to any auditor, and nothing is shared without that sign-off.

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