8D Scan Pro

Sample result

What an 8D review looks like

A complete review result for a sample 8D – exactly what you get after uploading your own report: overall score, D1–D8 scores, root cause evidence, findings and a PDF report.

Supplier, part and numbers are fictitious. The report is assessed with the same criteria and weights as in the app.

The reviewed 8D report at a glance

Supplier
Sample Plastics Ltd. (fictitious)
Complaint
Q-2026-0147
Part
Connector housing PA66 GF30
Defect
Broken latch
  • D2: At the customer's assembly line, 37 of 2,400 housings from batch 2639 were found with a broken latch.
  • D3: Stock was blocked and sorted (11,800 parts, 52 rejects), clean point from batch 2642.
  • D4: The supplier names over-dried granulate after a wrong dryer setting as the root cause.
  • D5–D7: Dryer parameters locked with a password, operators trained, FMEA "will be updated".

The review result

Sample Plastics Ltd. (fictitious) · Complaint Q-2026-0147 · 8D_Q-2026-0147_connector_housing.pdf

Major Rework Required
62%
Overall score
Root Cause Quality50%
Corrective Action Robustness60%
Containment Quality75%
Prevention45%
Closure Readiness40%

Discipline scores

D1 Team · 5%80%
D2 Problem Description · 10%70%
D3 Containment · 15%75%
D4 Root Cause Analysis · 25%55%
D5 Corrective Actions · 20%65%
D6 Validation · 5%40%
D7 Prevention · 15%50%
D8 Closure · 5%70%

Root cause evidence

Supported by evidence

The dryer log shows an extended drying time in the affected period. Reproduction or a comparison of defective and good parts is missing, and alternatives are not ruled out with data.

  • Effectiveness proven in D6
  • Alternative causes ruled out with data
  • Remaining uncertainty stated
  • Detection root cause explained

How the report would score higher

The three disciplines with the biggest impact on the overall score, with concrete additions.

1

D4 Root Cause Analysis

now 55/100 · weight 25%up to +11 points overall
  • Compare residual moisture or impact strength of defective and good parts.
  • Rule out latch tool wear, weld line and melt temperature with measurement data.
  • Analyse the detection root cause: why did the outgoing inspection not catch the broken latch?
  • Question "operator set it wrong" further: why was a wrong setting possible?
2

D7 Prevention

now 50/100 · weight 15%up to +8 points overall
  • Attach the updated FMEA and control plan with dates.
  • Transfer lessons learned to other dryers and similar PA66 parts.
3

D5 Corrective Actions

now 65/100 · weight 20%up to +7 points overall
  • Add a detection action, e.g. a latch or insertion force check in the outgoing inspection.
  • Name owners and due dates for each action.

Detailed score per discipline

D1 Teamweight 5%

80/100

The team is cross-functional with production, quality and toolmaking; team leader and roles are named.

Missing for a full score

  • Add the customer contact or the customer's supplier quality engineer to the team.

D2 Problem Descriptionweight 10%

70/100

Defect, location found, quantity and batch are clearly described. The description stays with the detection and does not anticipate the root cause.

Missing for a full score

  • Attach photos of a defective and a good part.
  • State the deviation from the drawing or specification (characteristic, nominal value).

D3 Containmentweight 15%

75/100

Blocking, sorting with results and a marked clean point are documented and implemented promptly.

Missing for a full score

  • Include parts in transit and at other customer plants in the containment.
  • Attach the sorting work instruction.

D4 Root Cause Analysisweight 25%

55/100

The root cause "over-dried granulate" is plausible and supported by the dryer log, but not reproduced. Alternatives are only called "excluded". Why the defect was not detected remains open.

Missing for a full score

  • Compare residual moisture or impact strength of defective and good parts.
  • Rule out latch tool wear, weld line and melt temperature with measurement data.
  • Analyse the detection root cause: why did the outgoing inspection not catch the broken latch?
  • Question "operator set it wrong" further: why was a wrong setting possible?

D5 Corrective Actionsweight 20%

65/100

Locking the dryer parameters is a technical action, which is good. Training alone is weak. There is no action on detection.

Missing for a full score

  • Add a detection action, e.g. a latch or insertion force check in the outgoing inspection.
  • Name owners and due dates for each action.

D6 Validationweight 5%

40/100

The only evidence given is that no complaint has been received for one week. That is not a robust proof of effectiveness.

Missing for a full score

  • Attach a measurement series for insertion force or residual moisture across several batches after the change.
  • Define the period and acceptance criterion for effectiveness.

D7 Preventionweight 15%

50/100

The FMEA is to be updated but has not been yet. Transfer to other dryers and lines is missing.

Missing for a full score

  • Attach the updated FMEA and control plan with dates.
  • Transfer lessons learned to other dryers and similar PA66 parts.

D8 Closureweight 5%

70/100

The team is recognised and closure is planned.

Missing for a full score

  • Date the closure only after proven effectiveness and with customer approval.

Strengths3

  • Defect, quantity and affected batch are clearly described in D2.
  • Containment with sorting results and a clean point was implemented quickly.
  • Locking the dryer parameters is a technical corrective action.

Weaknesses4

  • Operator training is presented as the main action but only works organisationally.
  • Alternative causes are only stated as "excluded" without data or tests proving that exclusion.
  • The root cause was not reproduced, but the report does not openly state the remaining uncertainty.
  • Without reproduction the root cause is only probable until D6 proves the corrective actions are effective.

Major Gaps2

  • D6 contains no data-based proof of effectiveness.
  • The FMEA is only announced, not updated.

Missing Information3

  • Photos of defective and good parts
  • Residual moisture or material test results for the defective parts
  • Owners and due dates of the actions

Critical Findings1

  • The detection root cause is missing: the report does not explain why the defect was not detected before shipment.

Improvement Recommendations3

  • Compare defective and good parts for residual moisture or impact strength to prove the root cause.
  • Introduce a latch function check in the outgoing inspection and add it as a detection action.
  • Prove effectiveness with measurement data across at least three batches before closing the 8D.

PDF report

You can download every result as a PDF – to file it, forward it to the supplier or show it in an audit. Here is the report for this sample.

Download sample PDF

How does your 8D report score?

Upload your finished report as a PDF, Word or Excel file. Your first 3 reviews are free. 8D Scan Pro evaluates reports – it does not write them.

Review your report for free Read the 8D tips

The result is an automated assessment and does not replace the expert review by your quality team.