A factory audit supports findings against defined criteria at a stated site and time. It does not automatically approve your component, every future production lot, or the commercial counterparty.
For hardware buyers deciding what check to commission. Define the audit scope with a qualified auditor; this guide does not establish supplier or product approval. Our review methodology →
A practical decision table
RivetBridge scope-selection matrix. Audit categories follow the ASQ reference below; the buyer questions and inference limits are our practical framework. Exact conclusions depend on the agreed scope and evidence.
Check
Question it can address within scope
Do not infer
Desktop evidence review
What claims, documents and contradictions need resolution?
That a production site or process was physically examined.
System audit
Are the specified management-system arrangements implemented?
Approval of your drawing revision or every future lot.
Process audit
Does the examined operation meet the specified process criteria?
That unobserved operations or subcontractors were covered.
Product audit
Does the examined product meet the stated requirements?
Universal approval beyond the products and criteria examined.
Component testing
How do submitted samples perform under the agreed test conditions?
Continuing production control or legal counterparty identity.
“Audit this factory” leaves too much room for misunderstanding. Replace it with a decision: can we proceed to a pilot using this process and revision, or must a specific control gap be closed first? Agree the location, relevant operations, criteria, records to examine and reporting boundaries before booking the visit.
ASQ distinguishes system, process and product audits. A system audit examines management-system arrangements; a process audit examines an operation against defined requirements; a product audit examines a particular product against requirements. These scopes can overlap in an assignment, but one label does not imply that all three were covered.
Write an audit brief around the open evidence gaps
Use this RivetBridge checklist as a starting brief for an appropriately qualified auditor. It is not a certification protocol.
Decision and baseline: identify the component revision, intended next commitment and critical requirements supplied by your engineering team.
Site and process: name the proposed location, production steps and any subcontracted operations that need examination.
Criteria and evidence: specify the procedures, process limits, inspection records and traceability questions to evaluate; agree what can actually be observed during the visit.
Access and exclusions: confirm whether the relevant line will run, which records will be available and what remains outside scope.
Output and follow-up: request findings linked to evidence, limitations, responsible owners and closure conditions. A promised corrective action is not evidence that it was completed.
Worked example: a coating line is present, but approval is not
Illustrative scenario—not a customer case: an enclosure supplier shows a coating line during a visit. The buyer needs a specified finish on revision B, but the observed line is running a different part. The report identifies the equipment and records reviewed; it does not contain results for the buyer’s component.
A defensible conclusion is that the described equipment was observed at the visited site. The next questions remain component-specific: which process will run this part, which requirements apply, how will samples be traced, and what results are needed for acceptance? Engineering defines those requirements; the auditor can investigate relevant process controls; testing addresses agreed properties of the submitted samples.
Do not rewrite that finding as “factory approved for production.” Record a conditional next gate: obtain revision-aligned sample evidence and close the specified process gaps before the authorized buyer team considers release.
Read the limitations before reading the overall rating
Check the report’s site, date, criteria and exclusions. Ask whether your relevant process was running, whether subcontractors were included and which records or products were actually examined. A conclusion about one site or activity should not silently expand to a different location, component or production period.
Our practical rule: use the narrowest conclusion supported by the report. Treat inaccessible records and unobserved activities as explicit unknowns, not implicit passes. If a finding needs follow-up, define the evidence and owner that can close it rather than relying on an overall score.
Combine the checks without confusing their roles
Use a desktop review to organize the available identity, quote and requirement evidence and frame unresolved questions. Use a scoped on-site audit when the decision requires physical process or site evidence. Use an engineer or appropriate laboratory for component-specific test planning and results; obtain legal advice for contracting-party or ownership questions.
This guide is a buyer planning framework, not an audit report, certification or regulatory determination. RivetBridge’s Supplier Review is a desktop assignment; any physical audit or specialist testing requires a separately agreed scope and provider. Final component and production release remain with your authorized team.
APPLY THIS TO YOUR COMPONENT
Reality Check · $500–$900
Bring the supplier information and the decision you need to make. A desktop Reality Check can turn the gaps into a focused next-check plan before you commission a visit.