Compliance Evidence in the Automotive Supply Chain: A Systematisation of the Quality-Document Spine and a Taxonomy of Documentation Failure Modes
2026-07-06 • Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science
Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science
AI summaryⓘ
The authors studied the chain of documents used in the automotive industry to prove parts meet quality standards. They mapped out how this chain works under two main systems and collected thirteen public cases of failures related to these documents from 2012 to 2024. They then categorized the types of failures based on how and when they happened and who was responsible. Their findings show that routine checks in this documentation chain did not catch any of the failures, suggesting problems with the verification process itself. The authors also suggest improvements and future research directions based on their analysis.
supplier-quality evidenceproduction part approval process (PPAP)AIAG PPAPVDA Volume 2 PPAcertification chainverification processcompliance documentationfailure taxonomyevidence retentionquality assurance
Authors
Dawar Jyoti Deka, Nilesh Sarkar
Abstract
The automotive industry runs on a dense, standardised chain of supplier-quality and certification evidence: production part approval packages, initial sample reports, material certificates, inspection sign-offs, and the type approval dossiers. The chain is operationally central, yet no literature maps it as an information system, and its failures are studied as corporate misconduct rather than system outcomes. This paper systematises the chain and taxonomises its documented failures. First, it systematises the supplier-quality evidence chain across the two dominant regimes, AIAG PPAP and VDA Volume 2 PPA, organised by artefact, producer, verifier, trigger, approval state, and retention. Second, it compiles a compendium of thirteen compliance-documentation failures made public 2012 to 2024, built strictly from the public record and each classified by evidentiary status (adjudicated, company-acknowledged, or alleged), with the Japanese certification cluster of 2016 to 2024 as centrepiece. Third, it builds a failure-mode taxonomy over the compendium, dimensioned by mechanism, lifecycle locus, driver, and detection path, shown exhaustive and discriminating over the case set. Fourth, it derives evidence architecture requirements mechanism by mechanism and sets an open-problems agenda. Across all thirteen cases, not one failure surfaced through the chain's own routine verification; the record indicts the verification layer, not only the evidence authors.