This output was produced by an AskMojo lab. Build one that works for you.Create your own lab
Made withThe full 8Din8D ReportbyErwanErwanPUBLIC
DocumentAugust 18, 2026
AI-generated
SPEC8D Report › The full 8D

8D report CQ-4471, part 774-2210-B

Erwan·August 18, 2026

8D report CQ-4471

FieldValue
Customer referenceCQ-4471
Part774-2210-B, bracket, zinc plated
BatchL-26-0714
Complaint received2026-07-29
Report issued2026-08-08
StatusD6 verified, D7 in progress
01D1. Team, 2026-07-30
[personne], quality manager. Owner of this 8D, D4 analysis.
J. Ferrand, logistics. Stock hold and quarantine.
S. Nowak, shift B lead, machine CN-06. Process facts and trials.
P. Renaud, maintenance. Brush wear measurement and interval revision.
02D2. Problem description, 2026-07-30

Burr on the 8 mm bore of part 774-2210-B, batch L-26-0714. Detected by the customer on assembly line 3 on 2026-07-29, by hand during fitting. Two operators were cut and the line stopped 40 minutes. Customer sorting found 61 non-conforming parts out of 300 checked, a rate of 20 percent, on a delivery of 4 800 parts shipped 2026-07-16. The burr sits on the intersection of the 8 mm bore and the top face, height measured at 0.15 to 0.30 mm on our retained samples. The drawing requires all edges free of burr.

03D3. Containment, 2026-07-30, still running
1 240 parts at the customer, 100 percent checked by our sorter on site 2026-07-31, at our cost. 247 non-conforming found and replaced. Sorting records sent per box.
2 400 parts of the 2026-07-28 delivery held at customer goods-in, released after sort on 2026-08-01.
3 600 parts of our stock quarantined 2026-07-30, sorted 2026-08-02, 690 scrapped.
900 parts in work: 100 percent burr check added before packing.
Next three batches on tightened inspection, 20 parts per box on the bore. Lifted 2026-08-07 once D6 verification was accepted.
Delivery list checked: no other customer received batch L-26-0714.
04D4. Root cause, 2026-08-06

Occurrence. The deburring brush on machine CN-06 was worn to 14 mm against 22 mm new, a 36 percent filament loss, while still inside its seven day scheduled interval. Trials on retained parts with a new brush produced no burr. Confirmed. The interval is time based with no wear measurement at change, and it was set when CN-06 ran a softer part at half the current volume. Part 774-2210-B moved to CN-06 in March 2026 and the interval was never revisited.

Ruled out, with evidence: bore diameter drift (log ML-26-0714, 8.02 to 8.05 mm on 8.00 to 8.10, centred), drill wear (tool log CN06-T14, 1 100 parts on a 4 000 part life, within wear limit).

Open: raw material hardness above nominal. Retained coupon not located, so not tested. Hardness check scheduled 2026-08-14 on the next coil from the same supplier lot. This branch stays open. It does not affect D5, which addresses the confirmed causes.

Escape. Control plan CP-774-2210 rev C carries no burr characteristic on the 8 mm bore. No inspection could have caught the condition. Confirmed by document review. Contributing: sampling of 5 parts per box gives roughly a 33 percent chance per box of catching a 20 percent condition. Inspector conformity to the plan was checked and is not a cause (record IR-26-0714).

05D5. Corrective actions chosen, 2026-08-06
CauseActionWhy this one
Brush wear inside a time based intervalMove the CN-06 deburring brush to a count based interval of 800 parts, with filament length measured and recorded at every change, reject below 18 mmCount tracks the wear driver. Time does not, and the volume on this machine has doubled since the interval was set
Control plan has no burr criterionAdd a burr characteristic on the 8 mm bore to CP-774-2210, tactile check plus 0.05 mm maximum height, and raise sampling to 20 parts per boxThe escape cannot be closed by fixing the machine. Nothing was looking for this condition

Alternative considered and rejected: a 100 percent automated burr inspection. Cycle time and cost are out of proportion to a defect that the interval change removes at source.

06D6. Implemented and verified, 2026-08-07
ActionEffectiveEvidence
Count based brush interval, 800 parts, wear recorded, 18 mm reject limit2026-08-03Maintenance plan MP-CN06 rev D. Four changes recorded since, filament at 19 to 20 mm at change, none below limit
Control plan burr characteristic and sampling at 20 per box2026-08-04Control plan CP-774-2210 rev D. Three batches run since, 5 400 parts, 240 parts inspected, zero burr found
Operator instruction on burr check at final inspection2026-08-04Work instruction WI-INSP-77 rev B, four inspectors signed off

Defect rate on the 8 mm bore since implementation: 0 out of 240 inspected across three batches, against 20 percent on the claimed batch.

07D7. Prevent recurrence, in progress, due 2026-08-21
PFMEA for 774-2210-B updated: burr at the bore intersection added as a failure mode, detection ranked against the new control. Document PF-774-2210 rev C, issued 2026-08-07.
Extended to similar parts: the six other parts running deburring brushes on CN-06 and CN-07 were reviewed. Four had the same time based interval and no burr criterion. Both changes are being applied to all four, due 2026-08-21.
Lessons learned circulated to methods and maintenance: a consumable interval set for one part does not survive a part change on the same machine. Interval review added to the part transfer checklist, document TC-01 rev B.
Open item carried from D4: raw material hardness check 2026-08-14. If it returns above nominal, this 8D reopens at D4.
08D8. Closure, 2026-08-08

Disciplines D1 to D6 closed. D7 due 2026-08-21, this report is reissued at D7 closure. Closed by [personne], quality manager. Team recognised at the 2026-08-08 production meeting; S. Nowak located the wear pattern that made the occurrence branch testable.

Share thisXLinkedInWhatsApp
Build your own with AskMojo

More from 8D Report

More by Erwan

Similar outputs

Knowledge bundle (OKF)