PCB First Article Inspection Services

First-Build Evidence Checked Before Production Continues

SUGA helps OEM teams check released requirements against first-build evidence while deciding whether to continue producing their boards. We can review the released file set, check first-build evidence, FAI report records, and open findings with traceable status before the team decides to continue production.

Request a Quote

Upload BOM & Gerber

First-Build Evidence Checked Before Continued Production:

drawing and BOM match
approved source match
revision alignment
finding closure.

What a First Build Proves Before Production

Released Requirements vs. First-Build Evidence

What the FAI check proves is whether the first assembled board matches the released requirements signed off for production use. The acceptance basis of a clean sample includes the released drawing, BOM, approved vendor list, assembly notes, and agreed FAI scope used to decide if the sample is acceptable. For OEM board projects down the supply chain, there is value in the physical check, but even more in the documented result used to support acceptance.

What FAI Does Not Replace

FAI does not replace in-process inspection or electrical testing records; they are included in the FAI package only when they are directly attributable to the released requirement and a first-build result.

When the Acceptance Basis Needs Clarification

If the released file set leaves a drawing note, substitute part, revision mark, polarity callout, or drawing revision note undetermined, then the FAI is not a confirmed result until that is clarified. In that case, the result is an open item: what is undefined, which requirement it applies to, and what clarification is needed before proceeding.

The first-build decision stays based on evidence, not chance.

First-Build Checks That Decide FAI Acceptance

Drawing, BOM, and Approved Source Match

Checking the FAI begins by comparing the assembled board with the released drawing, BOM, AVL, revision notes, and assembly requirements. This confirms that the sample provided is the same as the released drawing agreed for production use, not from an earlier file set, an unapproved substitute, or a drawing package still not approved for production.

For SUGA, a clean result of this first-build FAI starts with whether what was released matches what was actually assembled. A drawing mismatch does not necessarily mean the assembled product is unusable, but it does change the status of the first-build FAI. Then the affected requirement must be identified, connected to the right evidence, and clarified before acceptance can be declared complete against that requirement.

First-Build Verification Items

Check Item	What It Confirms	Evidence Used	Review Note	Related Record
Drawing Characteristics Match	First build represents correct drawing	Ballooned drawing and measured result	Use of drawing-defined items only	FAI result sheet
BOM Match	Installed hardware matches the approved BOM	BOM, component label and trace record	Alternate-part approval documented	BOM review record
AVL Match	Supplier of component on approved AVL	AVL and supplier records with approval letter	Source approval recorded	AVL check record
Polarity and Orientation	Installation of direction-sensitive components has been verified	Assembly drawing, photographs and automated optical inspection (AOI) image if applicable	AOI method noted when used	Image or Inspection record
Package Seating	The package position and installation condition are captured visually	Photograph or AOI image if required	Hidden-joint image when necessary	First Build Photograph Record
Solder Workmanship	Solder characteristics are verified against accepted workmanship standards	Photographs and workmanship standards if established	Workmanship basis defined when required	Inspection Record
Mechanical Fit	The mechanical fit of all connectors, cables, shields and hardware of this sample is verified	Assembly drawing, fit check and photograph	Enclosure-level items noted separately	Fit check record
Revision Marking	The revision marking of the printed circuit board, label, firmware and documents must be consistent	Label record, production traveler and firmware record where relevant	Revision status recorded	Revision check record
Released Test Evidence	Test evidence available when required	Test Protocol or Fixture / Program ID	Test method basis noted	Test Record

Assembly Evidence and Test Records in First-Build Checks

First-build checks can include assembly evidence and approved test records as part of the approved FAI scope. Assembly evidence includes visible workmanship, component orientation, package seating, appropriate markings and labels, and mechanical fit. Test outputs, such as electrical parameters, are also included in the check if those outputs relate back to the identified requirement.

Evidence is only of value if it assists in confirming the first-build board against the previously identified requirements. An electrical test result, an inspection image, or any production documentation may provide background information, but the evidence will not be part of the FAI unless it clearly relates to the agreed FAI line item or approved FAI scope. If it does not connect, it may be valuable for background but will be treated independently of the FAI acceptance process.

First Article Inspection Report and Supporting File Set

Released Files That Define the Acceptance Basis

The FAI report supports the acceptance review because every first-build requirement traces back to the same supporting file set. The supporting documents could include the approved technical drawings, BOM, AVL, board design data, placement data, schematic, and any previously established inspection or test requirements.

These documents tell the manufacturer what they are expected to manufacture or build, what components are acceptable for manufacturing, which revision is active, and which attributes they must collect evidence for. Component identity may need to be confirmed back to the manufacturer part number (MPN) if the supporting documents require it. If any supporting documents are missing or outdated, the FAI result can still be recorded with respect to the measurement or observation, but the acceptance decision may lack a supporting basis.

First Article Inspection File Set

File / Evidence	FAI Use	Required Detail	Missing-File Risk
Attached Approval Drawing	Shows inspected characteristics	Acceptance basis	No acceptance basis to confirm inspected characteristics.
Attached Ballooned Drawing	Provides identification of requirements and results	Character ID, location, and requirements	No clear link between requirements and inspection results.
FAI Results Sheet	Has all inspected characteristics and states status	Inspected characteristics and status	Incomplete result status may leave inspected characteristics unresolved.
BOM	Identifies the installed component	Installed component identity and value	Wrong component may have been installed, or component value may be unrecorded.
AVL	Identifies approved source of component	Approved manufacturer for installed component	No approved manufacturer is shown for the installed component.
Board & Placement Files	Provide information to review the board and placement	Revision information	Revision mismatch may affect board or placement review.
Assembly Drawing	Provides information for assembly	Assembly construction details	No clear record to confirm assembly matches the released build.
Inspection Records	Provide evidence for the first-build inspection	First-build assembly inspection record	Weak traceability to first-build inspection.
Test Records	Provide documentation of testing conducted for FAI	Completed test status	Completed test status may be unavailable or unclear.
Nonconformance Record	Provides documentation of all findings, causes, and corrections for each item of nonconformance	Finding, cause, and correction	Open findings remain unresolved until cause, correction, and approval status are documented.

Supplier Records That Complete the FAI Package

SUGA’s FAI package will include a result sheet, first-build inspection report, released test reports, nonconformance report if a finding is made, and confirmation notes if the acceptance basis needs to be confirmed. These files from the supplier do not replace the released requirements, but rather indicate how the first-build samples compare with them.

A complete package should allow the project owner to answer three fundamental questions: what was reviewed, what evidence is provided to support the result, and what open items remain and require closure before proceeding to completion.

Missing-File Risk in FAI Review

The absence of a file creates an evidence gap, not merely an administrative delay. A missing drawing revision could prevent a measured result from representing the appropriate characteristic for that item. Missing approved source information could leave doubts about whether the component matches those approved for use. Without a defined test or inspection requirement, documentation may exist for the component but still not prove FAI acceptance.

File-set completeness will, therefore, determine the confidence of the report.

Ballooned Drawing Traceability in an FAI Report

Character ID, Requirement, and Location

A ballooned drawing, sometimes called a bubble drawing, is a drawing where inspected characteristics have been numbered and traced to the result lines for each measured or observed characteristic. Each numbered characteristic indicated on an FAI report should show its relationship to the requirement, measured or observed result, and review status of the drawing. The traceability chain should provide evidence that the first assembled sample was judged against the requirements and not just on a visual basis.

Result Status and Missing Characteristic Risk

When a blank field, skipped item, or “N/A” is noted in the FAI report, it does not necessarily mean that the assembled board is rejected or defective. When a result is missing, it will matter in relation to an agreed acceptance need; however, if a characteristic does not have a result noted against it or is missing an explanation or linkage to the proper requirement, that characteristic has no recorded evidence in the report.

When a characteristic is missing that affects the item’s fit, orientation, revision marking, approval of the component, or defined inspection point, then the result could remain an open item until it is clarified.

Clarifying Unclear Acceptance Rules

When acceptance criteria are not defined, SUGA will note the open point on the report and ask for confirmation before treating that characteristic as closed. The confirmation will contain the affected characteristic, the requirements needing confirmation, and the evidence required for closure.

Full FAI and Delta FAI Triggers

New Build and Revision Triggers

A first article review is usually performed for a new product when a PCB revision or assembly drawing change affects the first-build sample. The review process includes not only the change label, but also all changes to characteristics that have previously been accepted, such as dimensions, location, polarity, marking, fit, and workmanship requirements.

A full FAI is appropriate when the project does not have first-build evidence for the released version; a Delta FAI is appropriate when the project does have evidence for the unchanged characteristics that have previously been reviewed as acceptable, but not for those that are changed or affected.

FAI and Delta FAI Triggers

Trigger Event	Review Focus	Required Input	Decision Needed
Introduction of new product	A complete First Article Inspection	Released drawings, BOM, and assemblies	Acceptance of first production run of product
Revised PCB areas and characteristics	Current revision of PCB	Gerber files and drawings	Full or partial FAI
Changes to BOM or AVL	Components and associated fit/function	New revision BOM, approved alternatives, documented acceptance	Substitution approval or hold
Assembly drawing change	Changes affecting assembly detail	Specified assembly drawings, pins, labels or hardware descriptions	Sample reexamination decision
Process changes affecting fit or functionality	Changes affecting first-build characteristics	Change description, updated work instructions	Decision to approve full or Delta FAI
Changes in fixtures or programs	Changes affecting measurement results	Fixture IDs, programs, change notices	Result comparison against baseline
Supplier or material changes	Material or component change	Certificate of Conformance (CoC), traceability, qualified manufacturer's statement	Documents received and approved when required
Production restarting after a long gap	Risk-based review	Previous FAI closeout documents and current required status report	Re-FAI decision

BOM, AVL, Supplier, and Material Changes

Changes to part sources can affect the FAI status of those parts. Changes to the BOM, AVL, parts, materials, or sources can affect the sources of evidence required for acceptance. While the part may be fully assembled, that new source must match the acceptance requirement and basis for approval.

In instances where the number of affected lines is limited and well documented, a Delta FAI review may be sufficient. When the change impacts fit, performance requirements, markings, or multiple associated characteristics, the Delta FAI review may need to broaden.

Process, Fixture, Program, or Restart Triggers

Process changes, updates to fixtures, updates to programs, or production restarts after no production activity for a defined time period can affect the comparability of results. Supplier or material changes can also require a CoC or traceability records when those documents are part of the confirmed evidence set. The determination of the restart threshold should come from the quality agreement, purchase order, or project instruction and not from an arbitrary calendar interval.

The outcome of these changes should result in the organization being able to identify with confidence the items requiring new review before production can continue.

FAI Findings That Should Be Closed Before Production Moves Forward

Mismatch Types That Need Evidence Review

Findings made during the FAI process remain open when there is no way to clearly match the first-build sample to the requirements explicitly defined in the drawing. Some examples of these finding types include: mismatch of a drawing or BOM, conflict with an approved source, orientation issue, missing characteristic, defects in solder workmanship, concealed joint issues, mismatches to released test data, revision issues, or outstanding clarification items.

These finding types do not all represent the same level of risk. A missing record requires correction in documentation; whereas, an error in polarity, revision, or unapproved substitute could potentially impact all the other assembled boards that are produced using the same method. Acceptance before proceeding with production should be based on the requirement being affected and not on the wording of the finding.

Finding Closure Before Production Continuation

Finding Type	Typical Cause	Required Evidence	Next Action	Closure Evidence
Drawing mismatch	Board or assembly does not match released drawing	Balloon ID, measured result, photo	Correct file or sample	Updated record accepted
BOM mismatch	Wrong MPN, value, package, or substitute	BOM line, component label, trace record	Replace part or request approval	BOM issue closed
AVL mismatch	Component source not on approved list	AVL line, supplier record, approval note	Confirm source or replace part	Approval status recorded
Orientation error	Polarity or pin-1 direction mismatch	Photo, assembly drawing, inspection image when included	Rework and recheck	Corrected sample recorded
Missing characteristic	Ballooned item not measured or not recorded	Balloon list, missing result field	Complete inspection record	Result added and reviewed
Solder workmanship finding	Bridge, insufficient solder, lifted lead, visible defect	Photo, accepted workmanship basis if defined	Rework or disposition	Recheck result accepted
Hidden-joint concern	BGA, QFN, LGA risk during first build	X-Ray image when required by review scope	Add hidden-joint image evidence	Image reviewed
Test mismatch	Test protocol, fixture, or limit not aligned	Test protocol, pass/fail record, acceptance limits	Align test basis	Test result accepted
Revision mismatch	Board, label, firmware, document revision conflict	Production traveler, label photo, firmware note if included	Correct marking or document	Revision status aligned
Open confirmation item	Drawing, BOM, or acceptance rule not specified	Question log, written response	Hold affected item	Written answer documented

Evidence Needed to Close Each Finding

Closure evidence provides confirmation of how a finding has been resolved prior to production release. Depending on the type of finding, closure evidence may be a corrected file, approved deviation, clarified BOM line, updated result sheet, inspection support image, released test evidence, or nonconformance record.

The closure evidence should demonstrate the finding, affected requirement, actions taken, and documented outcome. For the FAI package to provide a complete view of what happened with an issue, it must contain documentation linking the finding and the closure evidence, as well as documentation showing whether the finding was accepted by approval or still requires follow-up action.

What Can Happen If a Finding Moves Forward Unresolved

Moving an unresolved FAI finding forward can carry a first-build issue into repeat production. A poor orientation callout or a component rotated incorrectly may lead to the same component being placed in the wrong position during the next production run. An error with the revision of the material may cause the board to be manufactured to an outdated requirement while the actual assembly remains conforming. Hidden-joint issues may require additional evidence in the absence of surface inspection confirmation of acceptance decisions.

The greatest value of FAI occurs when open items are treated as more than an administrative step. The finding note should guide whether the sample justifies the continuation of the project, if additional documentation is required to justify the next step, or if a change in the specified requirement is required before moving to the next phase of the project.

Which Records Count as FAI Evidence?

What Makes a Record Part of the FAI Package

Records contribute to the FAI package when the document is connected to a released requirement, matched to the sample, and reviewed for agreed FAI status. A document's value comes from its relationship between the released requirement, the sample, the result line, and the acceptance requirements.

Example: if the defined FAI coverage requires evidence in the form of a test or inspection output, and the result is connected to the FAI report, there is evidence to support acceptance. However, if there is no connection to the FAI report, an item may provide useful information about the project but will not close any open FAI requirements.

Records That Look Like FAI Evidence but Aren’t

A separate AOI log may show that a board passed a surface check, but unless the result is traced to the required drawing characteristic, it does not prove acceptance of that drawing characteristic. A test report will validate the electrical characteristics of a circuit but cannot validate any missing dimensional, source, marking, or revision results. An incoming material record will validate traceability of a part but must connect to either an approved BOM line or source requirement before it qualifies as FAI evidence.

This separation prevents false confidence in acceptance. Evidence must prove acceptance of defined requirements for the first-build sample.

Who Defines the Evidence Requirement?

The evidence requirement would typically be established by the project's specification, standard requirement, drawing note, purchase order instruction, or specified format for FAI. Therefore, if the evidence requirement is not defined, SUGA can treat it as reference information and flag it as needing acceptance confirmation.

Customer-Specified FAI Standards and Format Requirements

When a Standard Name Needs More Detail

A standard name alone does not define an entire document package as an FAI. When the standard name refers to AS9102, PPAP, ISO documentation, or a customer-specified FAI format, the requirement for that standard must be translated into report coverage, revision or version clarification, required evidence, approval steps, and acceptance criteria.

SUGA can perform a review of these requirements against the identified requirements for projects, but since standard requirements should come from a drawing note, purchase order, quality agreement, or other instructions, a general standard name does not automatically qualify as a certification or define a universal package format.

What Should Be Locked Before Report Review

Prior to preparation of an FAI report, the scope of the report must be defined: full FAI, partial FAI, Delta FAI, or selected identified characteristics. The defined format of the report, application of ballooning, definition of evidence attachments, signature or approval requirements must also be established, as well as the basis of acceptance.

For documentation-heavy submissions, having clarity on the report format will help to mitigate a recurring issue within FAI-submission processes, where the submitted sample is reviewed, but the reported format does not match the required format. Clarity in format requirements will also allow the evidence requirements to be appropriately grouped into the correct structure without requiring revision after the completion of the review.

What Changes FAI Review Effort and Pricing Scope

File Completeness and Pricing Scope

First article inspection cost is not based on the inspection label alone. Review time will increase when the submitted documents are incomplete, inconsistent, or lack sufficient detail to allow SUGA to determine whether the product will be accepted. Files with missing revision notations, files containing unresolved questions about the eligibility of the supplier, or documents without clearly defined acceptance requirements will all require additional confirmation before SUGA can make a determination regarding the first-build result.

When you request a quote, provide SUGA with all documents associated with the latest revision of your product, the approved requirements associated with your product, and other information pertinent to the review, such as report formatting, clearly identifying these documents. This will help SUGA separate the standard review scope from items that need confirmation before pricing is finalized.

Change Scope and Evidence Review

Changes made to a product or its associated documentation may not necessitate a review that is as labor-intensive as if the same product were being introduced for the first time. When a change has an impact on characteristics that have already been accepted in a previous FAI review, there will be an effect on the amount of review time it requires. For instance, each time there is a small change to a BOM, a change to the supplier of the component, a change to PCB design, or a change to the assembly documentation, there may be a different requirement for the documentation.

If the change area you are requesting review for has been defined, SUGA will assess whether the Delta FAI review should be limited to the affected characteristics. If the changes would affect several interrelated requirements, the scope of the review may broaden. When submitting a quote request, provide the revision history, change notes, and any previously accepted FAI evidence related to the product where relevant.

Hidden-Joint or Test Evidence That Adds Review Work

When a product review includes hidden-joint evidence such as X-Ray review and released test evidence, additional review work will be required. This type of documentation should not be assumed for use with every project; however, there may be a requirement to provide proof of compliance to the specified requirements, which cannot be provided by surface review alone.

When you request your quote, clearly indicate on your quote request if you expect to provide hidden-joint evidence, test evidence, or any special attachments as part of the FAI package. Pricing will then be tied to the actual evidence required for review, rather than the inspection title alone.

First Article Inspection Process: How to Start the FAI Review with SUGA

Step 1 – Prepare the Released File Set

While preparing your project files for FAI review, make sure to have a complete set of project files available for review by SUGA. If the project file set is incomplete, use the best available versions of the files that are to be reviewed and note any items that need confirmation and are not included within the released file set.

Step 2 – Mark Special Review Items

Indicate if there are any special items that require attention during the review process, including Delta FAI, customer-specified formats, standard requirement items, or evidence of any hidden-joint items. Include additional notes to assist SUGA in determining whether the FAI review is a standard first-build check or a highly documentation-intensive review.

Step 3 – Upload Files and Request Review

Once the project has been prepared and the special requirement items have been identified and marked, the final step in preparing the project for FAI review with SUGA will be to transmit the project information via the quote request process or the file upload process. Once SUGA receives your project materials, they will review the submitted project material, identify open requirement items, and determine the next steps for submitting the FAI package.

Request a Quote

Upload BOM & Gerber

Upload BOM and Gerber

Name

Company

Country

File Upload

Choose File

Project Notes

First Article Inspection FAQ

Q1. What does First Article Inspection prove?

FAI is a summary of the results based on the comparison of the drawing, BOM, AVL, revision level, and inspection findings. FAI is important because it provides evidence that the first build is adequate before production continues.

Q2. What does an FAI report show?

An FAI report documents all of the requirements that were reviewed, indicates what results were found, and specifies whether each individual requirement was accepted, open for clarification, or still pending. The FAI report may also document measurement results, inspection findings, first-build records, required test evidence, and follow-up notes regarding the closing out of findings. A good report will document the status of acceptance in a traceable manner and preserve the detail behind each result rather than reducing it to pass or fail.

Q3. What documents support First Article Inspection?

The files that define what is included in an FAI review include released documentation that defines what the complete build is when the board is assembled. The files submitted do not necessarily need to be the same for all projects; however, the documentation provided for submission will need to identify what is being approved along with the supporting evidence of first article completion.

Q4. What is checked during the first-build review?

The items that are reviewed to determine if an assembled first sample is consistent with the released requirements include drawing match, BOM match, approved source match, revision status, component orientation, package seating, visible workmanship, markings, mechanical fit, and appropriate test evidence.

Q5. What causes an FAI finding to stay open?

An FAI finding remains open when required evidence has not been provided, when the evidence cannot be matched to the affected requirement, or when the documented result does not satisfy the acceptance condition. An FAI may only be closed when an affected requirement, action taken, and closure evidence have been adequately documented to allow progression to the next step.

Q6. When is First Article Inspection required?

A full or Delta FAI report can be initiated whenever a new product introduction, revision change, material change, source change, assembly drawing update, process change, fixture change, program change, or restart condition may affect previously accepted characteristics. A full FAI is the preferred method when no prior first-build evidence covers the current release. Delta FAI is limited to the changed or affected area when previous FAI evidence still covers the unchanged characteristics.

Q7. How does the FAI process reduce production risk?

The FAI process identifies improperly executed requirements before faulty boards go into full production with those unsupported requirements. It captures requirement failures with a clearly defined review scope and helps document which findings are closed, accepted by approval, or still need action before production continues.

Q8. What should be verified in a ballooned drawing?

Every ballooned characteristic must be linked to the first-build sample and verified against the released drawing revision. Each referenced requirement should be listed with the required revision, and inspection requirements should be verified against the drawings, process control documents used to support the inspection requirement, and the first-build sample.

Q9. Who prepares which part of the FAI package?

The OEM side usually provides the original FAI review requirements, required revisions, released drawings, BOM, AVL, and inspection requirements when applicable. SUGA prepares the supplier-side review records within the agreed scope, and those records should match the submitted project requirements used to support the first-build review.

Q10. How is FAI different from in-process inspection?

The FAI review evaluates the first-build sample against OEM-approved requirements. A first-build inspection verifies the sample condition before production continues, but its scope is limited to sample condition and does not extend to documented acceptance of each released requirement.

Inspection, testing, and engineering support can help complete first-build review requirements.