Supplier-Quality, PPAP & Corrective-Action AI Agent
Assemble the PPAP package against your customer's own requirements, hold the APQP gates, alert clocks and concern deadlines in one state, and stop at the warrant — a named official signs it.
A first-pass approval rate across a supply base can look acceptable while a few suppliers carry most of the rejected elements. Nestack reports the rejected-element rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
New tooling at a new source
8.1%
3.7×
Review
Sub-tier PPAP evidence
5.6%
2.5×
Review
Post-SREA process changes
3.4%
1.5×
Watch
Carry-over parts at volume
1.6%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: rejected-element-rate lift vs. carry-over-part baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cycle ends when a test exists
A cycle is done when the rejected submission has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next package assembled is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Rejected-element rate rises for one supplier.
02Diagnose
The package that came back on the day of the build is read until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Stamp the change with a version; the submissions behind it are filed against it.
04Verify
Each affected case runs a second time, and one red result halts the release.
05Learn
It stays as a standing test, and the submission rules are rewritten alongside it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. What is detected next is measured against the longer suite.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, submission workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Submission workflow and boundary discovery and boundary definition.
02Portal, PLM and quality-source assessment.
03Customer-requirement and level mapping and rule mapping.
04Element ingestion and normalisation.
05Package assembly and requirement binding.
06Confidence scoring and gap routing.
07Engineer approval workflow.
08Portal and quality-system integration.
09Element and deadline cases.
10Guardrails and submission controls.
11Submission-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne customer, one programmeProductionProduction quality systemsAdvancedMultiple customers / plants
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your requirement sets✓✓✓
Engineer approval✓✓✓
Element-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by supplier—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved portal write-back—✓✓
Supplier-portal integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-customer requirement sets——✓
Multi-stage launch approvals——✓
High programme volume——✓
Multi-customer requirement controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, submission volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your customer requirement sets and levels→Customer-requirement and submission-level mappingWeek 1
02Representative submitted packages→Assembly baseline, element indexing and requirement bindingWeek 2
03Your phase gates and internal deadlines→Phase-gate, clock and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Portal, PLM and quality-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Submissions you would not want warranted→Rejection cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no warrant may go in without→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named engineers and authorised signatories→Engineer approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
The phases are plotted on real elapsed weeks, so the week-5 overlap is work, not padding.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Submission workflow discovery, requirement mapping and the boundaryW2Source integration and the assembly baselineW3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, deadline checks and failure-mode testingW5Portal integration, pilot submissions and targeted correctionsW6One launch programme run under the supplier-quality engineer, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers the weeks its own work is named in, and no others.
At the end of W6The final checks clear on live submissions and monitoring moves to Agent Care.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Manufacturing AI agent
Build a supplier-quality agent around your customer's requirements.
Show us one customer's requirement set, your phase gates and who signs. The assembly, the checks and the clocks are ours — the warrant, the disposition and the closure stay with your engineer.
