Scenario · Assembly documentation
Three documents.
One question.
"Stop checking quality. Start building it."
Paper/Excel, data logger or ProSuite — what do you show when the auditor, SQA or end customer asks?
Same assembly step.
Three documents. One question.
A critical step completed — everything done correctly. Later the auditor, SQA or end customer asks: "How do you know that?" Same operation, documented three ways.
"Building quality, the first time, every time."
Unit
230419537
20/04/2023 · 15:13 → 15:33
3
Documents compared
6
Assembly tasks
5
Unanswered questions
1
That proves it all
01 /
Paper & Excel
No objective proof
| # | Task | Paper ✓ | Excel ✓ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pick parts from storage | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2 | Mount bracket on wing | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | Tighten rivets | ✓ | ✓ |
| 4 | Torque bolt 1–3 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5 | Measurement done | ✓ | ✓ |
| 6 | Visual inspection | ✓ | ✓ |
?In what order were the steps performed?
?At what exact time was each step done?
?Which tool? Serial number? Calibration status?
?What were the exact torque values per bolt?
?Could steps be entered before they were actually done?
✗ PROOF: A signature and ticks in cells — subjective, no sequence enforcement, no measured values, can be filled in afterwards.
Proof level
1 / 5
02 /
Data logger / Smart tool export
Raw data, no context
Tightening results · exported from controller
Bolt 12,85 Nm240°OK
Bolt 22,92 Nm292°OK
Bolt 32,70 Nm530°OK
Unit / serial— unknown —
Operator— unknown —
Tork bolts 1–32,85 / 2,92 / 2,70 Nm ✓
Prev. steps done— unknown —
?Which assembly unit does this data belong to?
?Which operator performed this step?
?Were all preceding steps completed first?
?Was the correct procedure followed — or just bolts tightened?
⚠ PROOF: Values are real — but without context, sequence or operator, they are not traceable to a unit or process.
Proof level
2 / 5
03 /
ProSuite Birth Certificate
Objective proof
Pick bracket & rivets
15:29:42 → 15:29:52
Pos 1 · plastics kit
Pos 2 · bracket S01
Pos 3 · hardware kit
Pos 4 · metals kit
Pos 5 · rivetten ×3
Rivet bracket to wing — torque verified
15:29:52 → 15:30:32
Tool: smart tool S01045
S/N: 2208160062
✓ Calibration valid
PSet: 2
Spec: 2,85 Nm
| Bolt | Torque | Angle | Timestamp | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2,85 Nm | 240° | 15:30:18 | ✓ OK |
| 2 | 2,92 Nm | 292° | 15:30:28 | ✓ OK |
| 3 | 2,70 Nm | 530° | 15:30:32 | ✓ OK |
Bolt measurement — within tolerance
15:31:08 → 15:31:16
Min spec
25,00
Measured value
30,53
Max spec
40,00
Final result photo
15:33:15 → 15:33:31
📷 Take_a_photo1_20042023_152943.png
✓ Saved · server confirmed
✓ PROOF: Every step · exact timestamp · correct sequence · Tool smart tool S01045 · S/N 2208160062 · calibration valid · Device-verified values — not someone's word.
Proof level
5 / 5
So — what will hold up?
1/ 5
Proof score
Paper & Excel
✗Correct sequence provable?
✗Exact timestamp per step?
✗Measured torque values?
✗Which tool? Calibrated?
✗Step skipping impossible?
2/ 5
Proof score
Data logger
✓Torque values: automatically captured
✗Linked to a specific unit?
✗Sequence of steps enforced?
✗Operator identified per step?
✗Context: right procedure, right part?
5/ 5
Proof score
ProSuite
✓Sequence: locked, no steps skipped
✓Timestamp: every step, to the second
✓Torque: measured by the tool itself
✓Tool smart tool S01045 · S/N · calibration valid
✓Immutable audit trail
Building quality, the first time, every time.
Proving quality starts
before the question is asked.
Stop checking quality. Start building it.
Discover ProSuite →www.ProSuite.eu
ISO 9001 Certified · De Jaeger Automation BV
info@prosuite.eu · +32 9 378 49 89
Scenario · Assembly documentation
Three documents.
One question.
"Stop checking quality. Start building it."
Paper/Excel, data logger or ProSuite — what do you show when the auditor, SQA or end customer asks?
Same assembly step.
Three documents. One question.
A critical step completed — everything done correctly. Later the auditor, SQA or end customer asks: "How do you know that?" Same operation, documented three ways.
"Building quality, the first time, every time."
Unit
230419537
20/04/2023 · 15:13 → 15:33
3
Documents compared
6
Assembly tasks
5
Unanswered questions
1
That proves it all
01 /
Paper & Excel
No objective proof
| # | Task | Paper ✓ | Excel ✓ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pick parts from storage | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2 | Mount bracket on wing | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | Tighten rivets | ✓ | ✓ |
| 4 | Torque bolt 1–3 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5 | Measurement done | ✓ | ✓ |
| 6 | Visual inspection | ✓ | ✓ |
?In what order were the steps performed?
?At what exact time was each step done?
?Which tool? Serial number? Calibration status?
?What were the exact torque values per bolt?
?Could steps be entered before they were actually done?
✗ PROOF: A signature and ticks in cells — subjective, no sequence enforcement, no measured values, can be filled in afterwards.
Proof level
1 / 5
02 /
Data logger / Smart tool export
Raw data, no context
Tightening results · exported from controller
Bolt 12,85 Nm240°OK
Bolt 22,92 Nm292°OK
Bolt 32,70 Nm530°OK
Unit / serial— unknown —
Operator— unknown —
Tork bolts 1–32,85 / 2,92 / 2,70 Nm ✓
Prev. steps done— unknown —
?Which assembly unit does this data belong to?
?Which operator performed this step?
?Were all preceding steps completed first?
?Was the correct procedure followed — or just bolts tightened?
⚠ PROOF: Values are real — but without context, sequence or operator, they are not traceable to a unit or process.
Proof level
2 / 5
03 /
ProSuite Birth Certificate
Objective proof
Pick bracket & rivets
15:29:42 → 15:29:52
Pos 1 · plastics kit
Pos 2 · bracket S01
Pos 3 · hardware kit
Pos 4 · metals kit
Pos 5 · rivetten ×3
Rivet bracket to wing — torque verified
15:29:52 → 15:30:32
Tool: smart tool S01045
S/N: 2208160062
✓ Calibration valid
PSet: 2
Spec: 2,85 Nm
| Bolt | Torque | Angle | Timestamp | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2,85 Nm | 240° | 15:30:18 | ✓ OK |
| 2 | 2,92 Nm | 292° | 15:30:28 | ✓ OK |
| 3 | 2,70 Nm | 530° | 15:30:32 | ✓ OK |
Bolt measurement — within tolerance
15:31:08 → 15:31:16
Min spec
25,00
Measured value
30,53
Max spec
40,00
Final result photo
15:33:15 → 15:33:31
📷 Take_a_photo1_20042023_152943.png
✓ Saved · server confirmed
✓ PROOF: Every step · exact timestamp · correct sequence · Tool smart tool S01045 · S/N 2208160062 · calibration valid · Device-verified values — not someone's word.
Proof level
5 / 5
So — what will hold up?
1/ 5
Proof score
Paper & Excel
✗Correct sequence provable?
✗Exact timestamp per step?
✗Measured torque values?
✗Which tool? Calibrated?
✗Step skipping impossible?
2/ 5
Proof score
Data logger
✓Torque values: automatically captured
✗Linked to a specific unit?
✗Sequence of steps enforced?
✗Operator identified per step?
✗Context: right procedure, right part?
5/ 5
Proof score
ProSuite
✓Sequence: locked, no steps skipped
✓Timestamp: every step, to the second
✓Torque: measured by the tool itself
✓Tool smart tool S01045 · S/N · calibration valid
✓Immutable audit trail
Building quality, the first time, every time.
Proving quality starts
before the question is asked.
Stop checking quality. Start building it.
Discover ProSuite →www.ProSuite.eu
ISO 9001 Certified · De Jaeger Automation BV
info@prosuite.eu · +32 9 378 49 89