Three assessment tools, bought separately
They answer three different questions: can this part be trusted, can this fabricator build the board, and can this assembly house build it onto the board. Each is its own subscription and each runs entirely in your browser — nothing you assess is uploaded.
The three tools
Numbered 1 to 3 throughout — on this page, in your account and in the header of the tool itself, so it is always clear which one you are in.
See what each tool does
Five real criteria from each assessment set, and the four coverage figures the risk tool computes — taken from the tools themselves, not written for this page. Nothing here is saved, exported or attached to a provider record; that is what the subscription is for.
A worked example: one part, High risk tier, 13 of 37 AS6171 methods selected. These four figures are what the tool exists to produce.
Counterfeit Defect Coverage. How much of the 69-defect taxonomy the chosen test plan actually detects, weighted by defect. Read against the tier's target confidence — here it clears 80% by a quarter of a point.
Counterfeit Type Coverage. The same calculation per counterfeit type, because a plan can cover the taxonomy overall and still miss a type outright. One of the six meets TC here; the table below is the real output.
Not Covered Defects. Defects no selected method detects at all. Three of them is the gap you either accept in writing or spend more testing to close.
Under-Covered Defects. Detected, but below the confidence this tier requires — the quiet failure mode, because the plan looks complete until you read this number.
| Counterfeit type | DI | CTC (%) | Δ vs TC | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recycled | 0.98 | 80.09 | +0.09 | Meets TC |
| Remarked | 0.90 | 73.96 | −6.04 | Below TC |
| Forged Documentation | 0.70 | 64.66 | −15.34 | Below TC |
| Out-of-Spec / Defective | 0.50 | 35.42 | −44.58 | Below TC |
| Cloned | 0.10 | 7.35 | −72.65 | Below TC |
| Overproduced | 0.03 | 2.79 | −77.21 | Below TC |
Read it as a sentence: this plan answers recycled parts, is six points short on remarked, and does almost nothing about cloned parts. That is a procurement decision, not a test result — which is why the tool records who makes it.
The decision is signed, not assumed
A coverage number only means something when someone accepts it. The tool carries the whole round trip, and the printed report shows every name, role and date:
- Assessorruns the risk factors, selects the methods, records name, role and organization
- Qualityrecords the Quality recommended CDC — the coverage QA says the part needs
- Test labreceives the Supplier Test Plan and prices it; the quote feeds the working CDC back in
- Businessreviews cost against coverage and records the Final CDC with the delta against Quality
- Program & customerProgram Manager and customer-facing authority are named, with the programs affected
- Decisionoutcome, who decided it, under what authority, the reason, the evidence reference and the date — kept as a review round, so a second round is a new record, not an overwrite
Anyone else in the loop — design, component engineering, the supplier — goes in Other parties to the decision, which prints with the rest. Where Quality and Business disagree, the gap between recommended and final CDC is on the report rather than lost in a thread.
Five of the 247 criteria in tool 2, one per process area. Grade them and watch the weighted score and the level gate react, exactly as the tool does.
| Area | Criterion | Reference | Grade |
|---|
Grade all five to see where the level lands.
Five of the 252 criteria in tool 3, one per process area. Same engine, same gates — a different discipline.
| Area | Criterion | Reference | Grade |
|---|
Grade all five to see where the level lands.
CRITICAL criteria count double, and one CRITICAL Fail caps the level at Practical however well everything else scores. The real tools apply that across 22 or 31 process areas per provider.
Evidence, not opinion
Every criterion names the objective evidence that satisfies it. The evidence pack goes to the supplier as one self-contained file and comes back with their documents attached.
Gates that cannot be talked around
Practical to World Class is decided by hard gates — no CRITICAL Fail, Cpk ≥ 1.33, capability at the target construction — not by an average that hides a failure.
Checklists both ways
Export the scope you want to Excel or Word, send it to the supplier, and read their completed file back in. Rows are matched on a stable key, not on position.
Nothing leaves the browser
Assessments live in your own browser storage and export to a file you keep. No assessment data is stored on this server.
Pricing
Each product is a separate subscription. Buying one does not include the others, and each tool only ever contains the criteria you pay for.
Already subscribed? Open your account to go straight to your tools. Need to be invoiced instead of paying by card? Get in touch.