We align inspection method, reporting scope, and human review around drawing-defined tolerances and CTQ features before shipment.
EOAT quality is not just a final pass/fail stamp. For robot tooling, the important question is whether functional interfaces can be repeated after the first approved sample. We separate cosmetic dimensions from features that affect robot mounting, jaw contact, vacuum sealing, nest location, and replacement-part interchange.
Robot flange bores, dowel positions, tool changer faces, and fastener access are reviewed as assembly-critical features.
Gripper jaw profiles, soft-touch inserts, and part nest fixtures are checked against the surfaces that touch or locate the workpiece.
FAI, dimensional, and outgoing checkpoints create approval evidence for the first lot and a baseline for repeat orders.
Incoming material and record review
In-process machine operator checks
First article inspection by agreed scope
Final checks for agreed CTQ dimensions
A useful inspection plan starts from the part function, not from a generic checklist. The table below shows how we typically map EOAT features to measurement methods and buyer-side approval records.
| Feature | Risk Controlled | Typical Inspection | Buyer Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robot flange / adapter face | Stack height error, bolt-hole mismatch, flange runout | Position check, flatness, bore and dowel verification | FAI record before sample approval |
| Gripper jaw contact profile | Part damage, slip, inconsistent pickup force | Profile check, matched-set comparison, contact radius review | Functional dimension report for jaw sets |
| Vacuum manifold sealing face | Vacuum leakage, poor O-ring compression, burr contamination | Surface finish, port thread, burr and flatness checks | Leak-risk notes and outgoing checklist |
| Fixture nests and locating pins | Poor part location, robot reteaching, replacement mismatch | Datum surface, pin-hole, and pocket depth measurement | Repeat-order baseline for spare parts |
Coordinate measurement can be arranged for complex 3D geometries, flatness, and true position when the drawing or buyer approval plan requires it.
Full-surface profile comparison can be arranged when freeform surfaces or molded-part nests require more than point checks.
Non-destructive alloy screening and MTR review help confirm material grade when traceability is part of the order scope.
These methods can support surface roughness (Ra), edge profile, and internal groove review when the acceptance plan requires more than basic dimensional checks.
If every dimension is marked as tight, quality cost rises and the inspection report becomes less useful. For faster review, identify which dimensions affect robot mounting, product contact, vacuum sealing, and service replacement.
The fastest quality reviews happen when the drawing, CAD model, and acceptance standard tell the same story. Before releasing a sample PO, confirm whether the drawing revision matches the 3D model, whether plated or anodized dimensions are measured before or after finish, and whether mating parts will be available for fit checks. These details prevent ambiguous inspection results and reduce back-and-forth during first article approval.
Download a redacted sample format so your quality team can confirm the required inspection fields before sample release. Project-specific FAI records are generated only against the approved drawing, revision, and inspection scope.
Need your own report format completed?
Request Project FAIIf your industry requires CPK data, PPAP level 3 documentation, or specific traceability, please note this in your RFQ.
Inquiry Email
Attach your CAD files (STEP, IGES) and tolerances for quick quoting.
