OUR RESULTS

Identify & rectify the failure before the first article does.

GD&T, datum strategy, tolerance stack-ups and MBD/PMI, reviewed to ASME Y14.5, ISO GPS and BS 8888.

Work in this sector is confidential by default; what we can show is what a review finds, and the magntitude associated with what finding it early is worth.

The interface

The failure modes we investigate

Datum strategy & datum reference frames

Over-constrained or unbuildable datum reference frames, datum features no fixture can simulate, and DRFs that ignore assembly function. The datum scheme is the backbone; get it wrong and every measurement downstream is contestable.

Position, MMC & bonus tolerance

Position applied RFS where MMC belongs, forfeiting bonus tolerance the design already paid for. Fixed and floating fastener conditions verified by calculation, not habit.

Profile & basic dimensions

Profile of a surface with no fully defined true profile, missing basic dimensions, and title-block defaults doing work they cannot do under ASME Y14.5 or BS 8888.

Tolerance stack-ups

Conforming parts that will not assemble indicating the stack-up was incorrectly determined, not the parts.

Inspection & measurement ambiguity

Callouts that are geometrically legal and unverifiable as drawn: CMM-contestable measurements, uncontrolled degrees of freedom, and first article inspection (FAIR, AS9102) exposure baked into the definition.

MBD & PMI integrity

Model-based definition where the PMI contradicts the drawing, STEP AP242 exchange that strips design intent, and digital datasets a supplier's CAM and CMM cannot consume.

We help prevent the compounding effects, downstream concerns and engineering disputes that can emanate from front end engineering design and propagate throughout the process until final inspection.

One definition, one interpretation, three functions aligned.  Lower costs, less time wasted, improved quality; fewer failures.

Contact us today →

Where the review sits: between design, manufacturing and quality

The engineering drawing, or the model that replaces it, is the contract between three functions. Design writes it, manufacturing prices and makes to it, quality verifies against it.

Most cost leaks through the seams between the three.

A GD&T-led design assurance review closes the seams: one definition, one interpretation, evidence a design authority, a machinist and an inspector all accept.

Quality assured at the source, not inspected in at the end.

Specific examples

Three Concerns. Three Disciplines. Three Results

DESIGN · DFA REVIEW

Assembly failure resolved despite conforming parts.

Problem: Individual parts conforming, assembly failing. Design, manufacturing and quality each held a valid position. Programme blocked
Design issue found: A design-for-assembly stack-up against the functional assembly condition identified a tolerance interaction across the datum chain that no single part drawing revealed.
Output: Written stack-up analysis and a recommended datum-strategy revision.
Result: Design revised. Assembly condition confirmed. Programme moved.
MANUFACTURING · DFM REVIEW

Specification-driven scrap eliminated on a capable process.

Problem. A precision component with a persistent scrap rate. Capability data showed the process was within tolerance. Every function had reviewed it; no agreed root cause.
GD&T issue found: A design-for-manufacture review found a tolerance specified beyond functional necessity; the process was being asked to hold a specification the assembly condition didn't require
Output. Written DFM finding and a recommended drawing revision against the functional assembly condition.
Result. Drawing revised. Specification-driven scrap eliminated. The process had been capable throughout.
QUALITY · FAIR AUTHORITY

FAIR submission closed after two rejections.

Problem: A first article submission had failed twice. Each cycle raised a corrective action that closed, and the submission failed again.
GD&T issue found: An inspection suitability review identified an acceptance criterion the CMM method couldn't confirm at production volume. Not a manufacturing failure, not a drawing error; a verification gap written at design.
Output: Written verification finding and a revised acceptance-criterion recommendation.
Result: Criterion revised. Submission closed on the next cycle. Programme returned to an agreed delivery path.

The premise behind every finding

Every review we conduct is embedded into the respective & applicable full definition stack: ASME Y14.5, ASME Y14.41, ISO GPS including ISO 5459 datum systems and ISO 16792 digital product definition, BS 8888, and STEP AP242 data exchange.

Reviews are led by a holder of the ASME GDTP Senior certification, the highest level of the ASME Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing Professional credential, alongside Chartered Quality Professional standing.

Contact us

Have one of these live on your programme?

Contact us here  →