InsightFab
Knowledge Base/PPAP's Five Submission Levels: Which Level to Submit Under What Circumstances
Quality Assurance6 min read

PPAP's Five Submission Levels: Which Level to Submit Under What Circumstances

This article offers a practical perspective on PPAP, clarifying its five submission levels beyond standard quality documents. It provides guidance on strategically determining the appropriate documentation level based on product risk and client expectations, enhancing understanding of quality management and offering practical workplace insights.

That day the CPK report came out, the entire room fell silent for three seconds, and I saw the PM's face turn green.

That afternoon, the atmosphere in our factory was incredibly tense, because the trial production report for a new client product had just been released. The PM held the PPAP report, his face looking worse than the production line's scrap rate. I glanced at it: Cpk 1.08, DPMO 6210! Holy cow, this totally didn't pass. Emails from the client's manager were already relentlessly bombarding us, asking which PPAP Level we intended to submit. Xiao An, the rookie in our department, looked bewildered and came to ask me: "Senior, PPAP has different levels? I thought it was just submitting a bundle of documents!" Alas, young people are just too naive.

What's the Problem? Not All Products Are Worth Submitting 'Everything You've Got'

Frankly, the five levels of PPAP define "how much data you need to submit for client approval." Think about it: if today you're making a brand new, never-before-produced high-end chip for a client, compared to making a connector that's been mass-produced for five years and just received a minor revision, will the client's data requirements be the same? Of course not! For a high-end chip, you definitely need to provide meticulous details, even specifying which supplier's screws you use; but for that connector, the client might just believe you if you verbally say "no problem." PPAP levels standardize this "level of trust" and "degree of risk."

How to Do It in Practice? Just Distinguish These Five Levels

The five levels of PPAP are actually easy to remember:

  1. Level 1: Part Submission Warrant (PSW) + Appearance Samples. This is the simplest, usually used when the client is very familiar with the product or the risk is very low. To be honest, I even feel this is like the client is half-doubtful, just wanting to confirm that you really followed the regulations.
  2. Level 2: PSW + Appearance Samples + Limited Supporting Documents. A bit more than Level 1, possibly simple documents like inspection reports or material certifications. We usually use this for minor revisions to existing products or supplier changes.
  3. Level 3: PSW + Appearance Samples + Complete Supporting Documents. This is the most common, and also the most "standard" PPAP. From FMEA, Control Plans, Dimensional Reports, Material Reports, Performance Test Reports, MSA, SPC – essentially a whole suite of documents must be prepared thoroughly. That day, for our new product with a Cpk of 1.08, the PM immediately decided to submit Level 3 without a second thought. Because it was a new product, with high risk, the client would definitely want to see detailed information.
  4. Level 4: PSW + Appearance Samples + Other Documents Specified by the Client. This one depends on the client's preference. They might ask you to submit an additional specific reliability report, or data for a particular special process. Frankly, it's Level 3 as a base, with some "customized" additional requirements.
  5. Level 5: PSW + Appearance Samples + Complete Supporting Documents + On-site Audit at the Supplier's Facility. This is the highest level! Not only are all documents complete, but the client will also send personnel to your factory to audit and confirm that all your processes, equipment, and personnel meet the requirements. This is usually used for brand new, high-risk, high-precision products, or when the client has doubts about your in-house processes.

So the key is, next time a client requests PPAP, first clarify the product's "novelty," "risk level," and "client's pickiness level" before deciding which level to submit.

The Most Common Pitfall: Getting the Level Wrong and Shooting Yourself in the Foot

The most absurd thing I've encountered is some rookies, when the client only needed Level 2, they insisted on preparing all Level 3 documents, working overtime until midnight. As a result, the client didn't even look, and might even suspect you were trying to hide something, becoming more doubtful. Another common pitfall is when Level 3 should be submitted, but you unilaterally decide to submit Level 2. The result is the client seeing insufficient data, rejecting it outright, and even issuing non-conformities, at which point you're truly heartbroken and everything you did before was wasted. Frankly, it's a failure in "communication," not confirming with the client exactly what they need beforehand.

One Thing You Can Do Today

Confirm the PPAP level for the next new project with the PM.

Want to try it yourself?

Every tool mentioned in this article is available on InsightFab — just upload a CSV to analyze.

Go to Tools

More in this category

The Significance of First Article Inspection (FAI) and Last Piece Confirmation

This article illustrates a common real-world scenario in semiconductor manufacturing where a failed First Article Inspection (FAI) can cause an entire production line to halt, leading to significant disruptions and financial losses. It highlights FAI's critical role as a product's 'identity card,' ensuring initial production samples meet all design specifications and preventing costly issues in subsequent processes.

The Difference Between IATF 16949 and ISO 9001: Additional Requirements for the Automotive Industry

This article provides practical insights for those interested in quality management and the rigorous demands of the automotive sector. The author recounts an eye-opening experience of product rejection due to a CPK of 1.08, underscoring why ISO 9001 is insufficient and why the industry has transitioned to the more stringent IATF 16949, offering a deeper understanding of its strict requirements.

Customer Complaint Handling SOP: A Standard Process from Reception to Closure

This practical article opens with the author's personal 'Cpk 1.08' disaster, underscoring that customer complaints always arrive suddenly and often when least expected. Likening complaint handling to a 'firefighting SOP,' it emphasizes immediate resolution over theoretical analysis, providing readers with a calm, structured approach to avoid common pitfalls.