The traceability dossier that builds itself

The problem

The evidence exists. It just does not exist together.

Which component reels, which operator, which feeder, which AOI/ICT result and which changeover correspond to that board live today in scattered reports.

• Which reels, which operator, which feeder positions, which AOI and ICT results and which changeover correspond to a given board is knowable today — in four different places, none of which share a key.
• Rebuilding that for one serial number means pulling the MES, the AOI exports, the kitting travelers and somebody's memory, cross-checking them by hand, and accepting whatever gaps remain. It takes days.
• Meanwhile the OEM customer who raised the RMA is counting those days on your scorecard, and a late answer costs more than the failed unit ever did, because response time is scored whether or not the fault turns out to be yours.
• At audit time the same work repeats in full for every certifying standard and every customer with the right to audit, which in a multi-customer plant means several times a year, each one asking for the same evidence indexed a different way.

How it fits the IRIS system

Edge captures per critical change; Agents organizes by standard and by serial number.

Edge (pre/post photos + data per critical change) + Agents (organizes by certifying standard or by RMA request, generates a dossier structured by serial number or period). The auditor or OEM customer downloads the evidence pack from the web with zero human post-hoc work.

Every critical change leaves its pre and post evidence at the moment it happens. Anything rebuilt afterwards inherits the gaps of whatever nobody wrote down — and it is precisely in the assembly that a nonconformity appears. The dossier is not produced for the audit; it already exists when the audit is announced.

See the full IRIS architecture →

Before and after

Today's traceability versus the dossier that builds itself

Aspect	Today	With iLEAN Edge and Agents
Rebuilding one board's genealogy	Days across four sources	Minutes, by serial number
RMA response	Days	Hours
Where the evidence lives	Scattered reports	One downloadable evidence pack
For each auditing customer	The work repeats in full	Same evidence, another index
A missing record	Discovered during the audit	Flagged when it should have been generated
Who assembles it	A person, afterwards	Nobody: it closes as it happens

Days rebuilding traceability → minutes. Non-conformance risk or late response to the OEM customer → 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, counting the assembly work that disappears across RMAs and audits.
• RMA response from days to hours, which is the metric an OEM customer actually scores you on and the one that conditions the award of the next program.
• Days of rebuilding traceability down to minutes, whether the question comes by serial number, by reel lot or by period.
• And nonconformity risk over missing documentation removed, because a gap is flagged the day it occurs rather than in front of the auditor, when the only options left are an explanation and a corrective action plan.

RMA response from days to hours · payback 6-12 months. Estimate to be validated.

And the fair question from the production manager

“Isn't this just another document manager?” — the difference is direction. A document manager stores what somebody decides to upload afterwards, and inherits the same gaps. Here the dossier closes the instant the change happens, and Agents reindexes it for whichever standard or customer asks. Matching a captured record to its serial number is an anchored task where the best models drop below 1.5% error [1].

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