What Should a First-Article Inspection Report Include?

A first-article inspection report should identify the product and revision, list the requirements used, state which units were checked, and show actual results against each requirement. It should also include applicable material and test records, documented nonconformances, supporting photographs, and any unfinished or excluded checks. Each result needs a traceable link to the inspected unit and its acceptance criteria.

We are UTS, a third-party inspection company. The checklist below explains what buyers should look for in a general first-production report and where an aerospace First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) differs.

Our reports present actual findings only. They do not contain recommendations, corrective-action plans, or shipment-release advice. The preparation guidance in this article is separate from report content.

Which First-Article Report Do You Need?

For an aerospace FAIR, check the AS9102 revision and customer requirements specified in the order. IAQG provides Rev C Forms 1–3: Form 1 for part-number accountability, Form 2 for materials, special processes and functional testing, and Form 3 for characteristic accountability and results. Fields 1–4 repeat across the three forms for traceability. In Form 1 specifically, field 14 identifies full or partial FAI, and field 19 records whether the FAIR contains documented nonconformances. Those two fields are not shared across all three forms. Form 1 also provides verification and review/approval identities and dates.[1]

A general first-production report follows the agreed product checklist rather than automatically constituting an AS9102 FAIR. Our Initial Production Inspection (IPI) compares early production with the approved sample and specifications. An IPI report should not be treated as an aerospace FAIR merely because both concern early production.

Product Identity and Reference Documents

Look for the part number or SKU, product name, part revision, drawing revision, purchase-order reference, factory location, inspection date and unique report identifier. Serial, batch or lot references should connect results to the units examined where applicable. Part revision and drawing revision should be identified separately, not assumed to be identical. The report should also identify its issuer and any verification or review records required by the agreed format.

The reference list should name the documents actually used, including specification sheets, drawings, approved artwork and the inspection checklist. Where an approved sample is the comparison reference, its identity and approval record matter. Our sample evaluation compares samples against drawings and specifications; the report should make clear which sample or document governed each comparison.

If an approved reference was unavailable, that is a limitation to record. Checking an older artwork file does not establish conformity with a newer, unavailable version.

Inspection Quantity and Selection

The report should distinguish the order quantity, quantity available at the visit, and quantity actually inspected. Different checks may cover different numbers of units, so one headline sample count is not enough. Look for coverage by SKU, colour or size, unit identifiers where used, the selection method, and excluded items.

Acceptance sampling uses a sample selected at random from a lot to inform a lot-acceptance decision.[2] That is a different purpose from documenting first-article characteristics. A random-sampling statement alone does not establish that the required FAI characteristics were verified.

If only one of six SKUs was inspected, the other five are unexamined. If all six were inspected and only one conformed, the other five need their own recorded results. A passing result for one SKU tells you neither the inspection status nor the outcome of the others.

Characteristic-by-Characteristic Results

Each result should connect a drawing callout or checklist item to its requirement, units, tolerance and inspected-unit identity. Record actual measurements for dimensional checks, observed outcomes for functional checks, and descriptions for visual findings. Include the method and relevant test conditions; instrument identification and calibration evidence should be traceable where required by the agreed inspection criteria.

In an aerospace FAIR, Form 3 separates the characteristic number, reference location, requirement, result, tooling information where applicable, and nonconformance number.[1] A general report can use a checklist table, but a single “OK” should not replace the measurements needed to substantiate a dimensional result.

The following is a hypothetical formatting example, not UTS inspection data. The specified housing length is 120.0 ± 0.3 mm, giving acceptance limits of 119.7–120.3 mm.

Materials, Processes and Laboratory Evidence

Visual inspection can reveal coating appearance, but it cannot by itself establish chemical composition, fibre content, restricted-substance results or food-contact test results. For requirements within scope, the report should identify the evidence reviewed, its specification reference, certificate or laboratory report number, and the sample or material lot it covers.

ISO/IEC 17025 enables laboratories to demonstrate competent operation and valid results.[3] A reference to the standard is not itself evidence that a particular laboratory or test is accredited. Keep the laboratory identity, test method, tested sample and reported result traceable.

On-site observations should remain distinguishable from results taken from supplied documents. An outstanding test is “pending,” not “conforming.” Record an expected completion date only when one is confirmed, and do not extend a sample result to other batches without a justified basis.

Nonconformances and Unfinished Checks

Each nonconformance entry should identify the affected unit or area, the requirement, the observed deviation, and the quantity affected among the units checked. Include a defect classification only where agreed criteria define one. Supporting photographs should locate the finding and show its detail; a scale reference helps explain size but does not replace a recorded measurement.

Unfinished checks need documentary evidence or a clear status, not necessarily a photograph. Examples include a laboratory result not received, an unavailable SKU, or an unapproved packaging reference. The report should identify the missing evidence and the resulting limit on its conclusions. Where no nonconformances were found, that statement must remain tied to the checked scope.

A useful summary separates conforming findings, nonconforming findings and unfinished checks. It does not turn missing evidence into a pass or turn findings into instructions for rework or shipment release.

Labels, Barcodes and Packaging

Where these checks are included, record the approved artwork version, product markings, model identification, warnings and shipping marks compared with it. The packaging inspection record should distinguish specified carton quantities and assortments from actual counted results, with any mismatch documented.

For agreed barcode or QR-code scanning checks, record the checked-code count, scanner or device, relevant conditions, decoded content and whether it matches the approved data. The acceptance requirement is 100% scan success for the checked codes, with correct encoded-data matching. Record any failures as findings. This requirement does not mean every code in the lot was inspected or that readability on untested devices is guaranteed.

How We Prepare the Report Inputs

For IPI, we review the purchase order, specification sheet, approved sample and quality requirements before inspection. We customize the checklist to the product rather than use a generic template. Our published IPI process also describes checking materials, components, workmanship, function and packaging against the specifications, with defects photographed and documented. These are the practical steps behind the requirement-to-result comparisons described above.

To prepare for that review, share the current specifications, drawings where applicable, SKU quantities, sample approval record, artwork and packing requirements. Identify any conflicting revisions before the visit. These are buyer-side preparation steps, not recommendations included in our reports.

When reading the completed report, choose one result and follow it back to the unit, requirement, reference version and supporting evidence. If that connection is missing, the report has a traceability gap, even if its summary says the checked items conform.