Which defect patterns should a China FAT and PSI control plan cover?
Published · Updated
How to use this guide
This is a qualitative framework for preparing and reviewing pre-release controls on equipment sourced from China. It links the document review, factory acceptance test (FAT), pre-shipment inspection (PSI) and finding-close-out stages so that a physical observation is not separated from the order document or evidence needed to resolve it.
Each live order needs its own acceptance criteria, inspection and test plan, approved drawings, document schedule and authority matrix.
Which defect and hold patterns should the control plan cover?
| Pattern | What to check | Evidence to require |
|---|---|---|
| Document, revision, certificate or identification gap | Missing, incomplete, outdated, inconsistent or unapproved manuals, drawings, FAT packs, calibration evidence or inspection records; or certificates, serial numbers, model references and applicable standards that do not match the order | Approved document register and current revisions, plus each traceable certificate or declaration tied to the inspected unit and contract requirement |
| Dimensional or build non-conformity | Dimensions, materials, finish, assembly, workmanship, configuration and interfaces against approved drawings and specifications | Dated measurement or inspection record, photographs and an approved correction or concession route |
| Functional or performance failure | Safety functions, interlocks, controls, alarms, capacity, stability and other project-specified acceptance tests | Test method, instrument identity, acceptance criterion, result and retest record where required |
| Packing, marking, quantity or spares discrepancy | Protection, preservation, crate and handling marks, quantities, accessories, tools, consumables and contracted spare parts | Corrected packing list, photographs, quantity reconciliation and itemised spares record |
| Incomplete close-out evidence | A finding marked closed without the revised document, photograph, correction record, retest or authorised disposition needed to support closure | Finding register with owner, due status, linked evidence and the decision authority stated in the order |
At which stage should each pattern be checked?
| Control stage | Primary focus | Required record |
|---|---|---|
| Document review before FAT | Approved specifications, drawings, procedures, certificates, instrument and calibration basis, test agenda and release-document schedule | Open-point register and approved baseline for the FAT |
| Factory acceptance test (FAT) | Construction, interfaces, safety functions, interlocks, controls and project-specified performance tests against named criteria | Witness record, test results, photographs and finding list |
| Pre-shipment inspection (PSI) and close-out | Finished-goods identity, packing, preservation, marking, quantities, spares, shipping documents and closure of FAT findings | Inspection report, corrected shipment records and evidence-linked close-out register |
The stages overlap by design. A document gap identified before FAT can change the test agenda. Functional tests establish the recorded equipment results. The agreed shipment checks cover final packing, quantities, spares and closure evidence.
What evidence should close each finding?
| Finding type | Suitable close-out evidence |
|---|---|
| Document or certificate issue | Approved revision, traceable replacement certificate, corrected reference or written disposition from the authorised party |
| Dimensional or build issue | Dated photographs, measurements, repair or rework record and verification against the original criterion |
| Functional-test issue | Corrective-action record and a witnessed or otherwise accepted retest using the same applicable criterion |
| Packing, quantity or spares issue | Corrected packing list, itemised reconciliation, photographs and unit or package identifiers |
| Open commercial decision | A recorded recommendation and decision from the party that holds acceptance or shipment authority under the order |
Attendance, a witness signature or a supplier statement does not by itself close a finding. The close-out record should identify the original requirement, the finding, the correction, the verification evidence and the party authorised to make the final decision.
How should buyers use the pattern guide?
| Buyer action | Control purpose |
|---|---|
| Write the evidence package into the order | Prevents manuals, certificates, drawings and test records from becoming an after-shipment request |
| Link every FAT test to an acceptance criterion | Separates a supplier demonstration from a contract-defined acceptance result |
| Keep FAT and PSI responsibilities distinct | Preserves coverage of function at FAT and shipment condition, quantities, spares and packing at PSI |
| Assign an owner and authority for every finding | Avoids treating an inspector's observation as the buyer's final acceptance decision |
| Require evidence-linked close-out before shipment | Makes the release or hold decision traceable to the order and the corrected condition |
Frequently asked questions
Which issue types belong in a FAT and PSI control plan?
Cover the approved document set, certificate and identification consistency, dimensional and build conformity, functional performance, packing and marking, quantity and spares reconciliation, and the evidence needed to close each finding. The exact checks and acceptance criteria must come from the order and approved test documents.
When should these patterns be checked?
Begin with document review before the FAT, verify construction and function during the FAT, then use PSI and close-out review to confirm the finished goods, packing, marking, quantities, spares and evidence package before shipment.
How do FAT and pre-shipment inspection complement each other?
FAT records the agreed equipment tests. Pre-shipment inspection covers the shipment checks defined for the order, such as packing, marking, quantities, spares and open findings.
What evidence should close a pre-release finding?
Use evidence matched to the finding: an approved revised document, a traceable certificate, dated photographs, corrected packing or quantity records, or a signed retest record showing the applicable acceptance criterion and result.
How Sinospect applies this control discipline
In the supply model, Sinospect agrees the order-specific inspection plan, witnesses the project-specified factory tests, records findings and controls its own factory release gate before shipment; the buyer retains final acceptance. For a buyer-direct appointment, Sinospect provides findings and a recommendation within the defined scope while the buyer retains the factory contract, payment authority and final decision. The field sequence is set out in the factory acceptance test checklist, and witnessed execution sits in Sinospect’s factory acceptance testing in China service.
Planning FAT or PSI for a China order?
Send the equipment list, specification and certificate package. Sinospect responds with the inspection scope to write into the order, the documentation to require, and what should be verified before shipment rather than after the goods are ready.