1. Cover and identification
- Report reference
- DQN-A1-ILLUS-01
- Audit type
- A1 Supplier Audit
- Requirements applied
- Client A supplier quality manual, rev. 4; Supplier X control plans, work instructions and procedures for the processes in scope
- Client
- Client A (fictional)
- Audited organisation
- Supplier X (fictional): semiconductor assembly and test subcontractor, Penang, Malaysia
- Site scope
- Die attach, wire bond, moulding and final visual inspection on assembly lines 1 and 2
- On site
- Two consecutive days, including part of the night shift
- Auditor
- MY-00 (example code) · Certified Auditor, level L4 · process specialism: wire bond. The auditor’s name appears only on the signed declaration released to the client.
- Report issued
- Five working days after the last day on site · version 1.0
- Distribution
- Client A quality and purchasing. Supplier X quality manager receives sections 1–7 and 9. Confidential.
2. Executive summary
Result: Re-audit required. Supplier X runs a stable, well-documented assembly operation with good incoming material control. One Major finding (F-07) is systemic: it occurred on every shift sampled. Under our classification rules (section 4), a systemic Major means the result can improve only after on-site verification.
Themes across the findings
- Measurement discipline. A destructive bond test performed less often than the control plan requires (F-07), and a measurement system replaced without being re-validated (F-02).
- Containment. Rejected units were physically separated but not identified (F-06).
- Records. Four isolated lapses in document, training, ESD and traceability records (F-01, F-03, F-04, F-05). Each control is otherwise working.
Before the next shipment
Lots bonded during the period covered by F-07 were on hold at the time of audit. Their disposition should be confirmed before release.
Recommendation
Continue current supply under Client A’s normal incoming controls. Don’t release new part numbers to Supplier X until F-07 and F-02 are verified closed at a follow-up visit (service A6). The approval decision is Client A’s.
3. Scope and method
Covered
Die attach, wire bond, moulding and final visual inspection on lines 1 and 2. Day shift observed in full; night shift observed for two hours on wire bond and moulding.
Not covered
Electrical test, packing and shipping, sub-tier supplier management, and the calibration laboratory (records were reviewed instead of a lab visit).
Method
The audit followed the approach of ISO 19011: document review, observation on the floor, record sampling and interviews. Staff are identified in this report by role only.
| Records | Sampled | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Wire bond ball shear records | 21 of 21 shifts | Two bonders, seven consecutive production days |
| Lot travellers | 12 | Random, from finished goods in the last 30 days |
| Operator training records | 6 | Operators on shift during the audit |
| Equipment change records | 5 | All changes to control-plan measurement devices in 12 months |
| ESD wrist strap logs | 2 lines × 1 week | Most recent full week |
Limitations
- Night shift was observed for two hours only.
- Photography was not permitted on the production floor. Evidence is recorded as document references and written observations.
4. Result and classification
The result is set by these rules, not by the auditor’s overall impression:
| Result | Rule |
|---|---|
| Meets | No Critical and no Major findings |
| Meets with conditions | No Critical; 1–3 Majors, none systemic, each with an agreed action and date |
| Re-audit required | No Critical; 4 or more Majors, or any systemic Major |
| Does not meet | Any Critical finding, or evidence of altered or falsified records |
This audit: no Critical, three Majors, one of them systemic (F-07). Result: Re-audit required.
VDA 6.3 process audits use VDA 6.3’s own rating and A, B or C classification instead of this table.
5. Findings register
| ID | Severity | Category | Requirement | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Minor | DOC | Document control procedure: only the current revision at point of use | Die attach epoxy thaw instruction at one station was rev. C; rev. D (thaw time changed from 30 to 45 minutes) was released three weeks earlier. |
| F-02 | Major | MEAS | Control plan, loop height: measured by optical system; measurement system analysis after any change to the system | The loop height microscope was replaced four months ago. No gauge R&R was performed on the replacement. |
| F-03 | Minor | TRAIN | Training procedure: certification renewed every 12 months | One of six moulding operators sampled had certification two months past renewal. The operator was observed working correctly. |
| F-04 | Minor | HAND | ESD control programme: wrist strap test logged at every shift start | Two shift-start entries missing on line 2 in the week sampled. |
| F-05 | Minor | TRACE | Traceability procedure: capillary lot recorded on the lot traveller | Capillary lot missing on 1 of 12 travellers sampled. |
| F-06 | Major | NC-PROD | Nonconforming product procedure: every reject container tagged with lot, defect and disposition status | Three reject bins in the material review area had no hold tags. Product was physically separated but not identified. |
| F-07 | Major | PROC-CTRL | Control plan, ball shear: every 2 hours, 5 bonds per bonder | Ball shear tested once per shift instead of every 2 hours, on every shift sampled. Full record below. |
Full finding record — F-07
Every finding carries these fields. F-07 is shown in full as the example.
- Process area
- Wire bond — post-bond destructive monitor (ball shear)
- Requirement
- Control plan, ball shear line: test every 2 hours, 5 bonds per bonder. Reaction plan: hold all units bonded since the last conforming test.
- Finding
- Ball shear was tested once per shift instead of every 2 hours, on all three shifts, throughout the sampled period. All recorded results were within limits.
- Objective evidence
- E-03: ball shear records for two bonders over seven production days, 21 of 21 shifts reviewed. E-04: interview with line technician (role only). E-05: current control plan and reaction plan.
- Extent
- Systemic — every shift sampled
- Risk
- If bond strength drifted, up to one full shift of bonded units (about 8 hours) would be suspect, not 2 hours. The test is destructive, so suspect units can’t be screened later in the process.
- Containment
- Required. Lots from the sampled period were identified and on hold at the time of audit, which is why this is Major and not Critical.
- Root cause
- To be provided by Supplier X
- Corrective action
- To be provided by Supplier X
- Action owner
- Role: wire bond process engineering lead
- Response due
- Containment 5 working days · root cause and corrective action 15 working days
- Verification
- On-site, at a follow-up audit (A6), within 60 days
- Status
- Open
6. Observations and positive practices
Observations are risks, not nonconformities. They are kept separate from the findings so they can’t be mistaken for them.
| ID | Type | Note |
|---|---|---|
| O-1 | Observation | Bonder-to-bonder correlation depends on one senior technician. The method isn’t written down, so it would be at risk if that person left. |
| O-2 | Observation | SPC charts for die shear are reviewed weekly. This meets the procedure, but a shift that drifts could run for several days before anyone reviews it. |
| P-1 | Positive | Incoming wire lots are checked against the certificate of analysis before release, and mismatches are logged and escalated. |
| P-2 | Positive | Final visual inspection stations have boundary samples for each defect type, and inspectors could explain them. |
7. Evidence appendix (extract)
| Ref. | Evidence | Supports |
|---|---|---|
| E-01 | Work instruction, epoxy thaw, rev. C at station DA-2; document register showing rev. D released | F-01 |
| E-02 | Equipment change record for the loop height microscope; MSA register with no entry after the change | F-02 |
| E-03 | Ball shear records, two bonders, seven production days | F-07 |
| E-04 | Interview notes, line technician (role only) | F-07 |
| E-05 | Control plan and reaction plan, current revision | F-07 |
| E-06 | Material review area walk-through notes, three untagged bins listed by location | F-06 |
8. Auditor declaration
I conducted this audit in line with the scope and method stated in section 3. Each finding rests on the evidence recorded in section 7. I hold the qualifications stated in section 1, and their verification status is on file with Datum Quality Network.
Before accepting this engagement I declared that I have no current or former employment, financial interest or family connection with Supplier X. I will keep everything I saw and was told during this audit confidential.
Signed by the auditor. The signed copy, with the auditor’s name, is released to the client only.
9. Corrective action request
Supplier X is asked to respond to each finding by these deadlines, set by severity:
| Severity | Containment | Root cause and action | Closure verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 24 hours | 5 working days | Within 30 days, on site |
| Major | 5 working days | 15 working days | Within 60 days |
| Minor | — | 20 working days | Within 90 days, document review |
How a root cause is reviewed — F-02
We review every response before it’s accepted. Here is a first response that was sent back, and the revised one that was accepted.
Supplier’s root cause: “The engineer forgot to request MSA after the microscope was replaced.”
Supplier’s action: “Retrain the engineer.”
Why it was sent back:
- It blames a person. It doesn’t explain why the change process allowed a measurement device to go into use without MSA.
- It stops at the first “why”.
- Retraining one person doesn’t stop the same gap on the next equipment change.
- It doesn’t say whether other devices were changed the same way.
Root cause: The equipment change procedure has no step requiring MSA when a device used to measure a control-plan characteristic is replaced. The change form has no MSA field, so nothing prompts it.
Corrective action:
- A mandatory MSA step added to the equipment change form for any device listed in a control plan.
- Gauge R&R completed on the replacement microscope: 8.4% of tolerance (illustrative figure).
- All equipment changes in the past 12 months reviewed for the same gap. Two more found; both now validated.
Effectiveness check: The next three equipment changes will be checked at the follow-up audit.
Closure tracker
| ID | Severity | Response | Verification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Minor | Accepted | Document review | Closed |
| F-02 | Major | Accepted on second response | Follow-up audit | Pending verification |
| F-03 | Minor | Accepted | Document review | Closed |
| F-04 | Minor | Accepted | Document review | Closed |
| F-05 | Minor | Awaiting response | Document review | Open |
| F-06 | Major | Accepted | Follow-up audit | Pending verification |
| F-07 | Major | Containment confirmed; root cause due | Follow-up audit | Open |
The client sees this tracker for every audit. The client, not us, accepts each closure.
Want a report like this for one of your suppliers? Start an audit request, or read how we run an audit.