If you work in automotive or industrial manufacturing, you know the 8D report: when a supplier ships a defect, the customer demands eight disciplines of problem solving (team, problem, containment, root cause, corrective action, verification, prevention, closure). If you don't, here's the short version: it's the document that decides whether a supplier gets trusted again.
Most 8Ds don't fail on the hard engineering. They fail on completeness: root cause = "operator carelessness", corrective action = "retrain + 100% inspection", effectiveness = "verified" with no data. The customer bounces it, and the loop costs days.
So we built 8D Gate: a free, skeptical pre-send check. Paste the text or upload PDF / DOCX / Excel, and get an advisory ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS / REJECT with a score per section and a fix list.
👉 Try it: https://8d-gate.vercel.app/?utm_source=devto&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=feedback24h
Design rules that mattered more than the prompt
1. A fixed, weighted rubric. Root cause 25%, evidence quality 20%, corrective action 15%, problem definition / containment / verification 10% each, prevention and consistency 5% each. Nicer wording can't raise the score.
2. Hard caps the model can't argue past.
- Unsupported root cause → capped at 49 → REJECT
- Corrective action that only treats the symptom (sorting, training, extra inspection) → REJECT
- Major internal contradiction → REJECT
- "Effective" with no verification data → ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS at best
- Customer-detected defect with no escape analysis (or "person-blame" as the escape) → ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS at best
3. Evidence labels. Each finding is FACT, CLAIM, ASSUMPTION, MISSING or INCONSISTENCY. A filename, "see attachment" or "available on request" is never a FACT, because the text isn't there. When something can't be judged, the output says "Insufficient evidence to conclude." We'd take that over a confident wrong answer.
4. Golden tests. A set of synthetic 8Ds with known expected decisions (REJECT for unsupported root cause, symptom-only CA and contradictions; CONDITIONAL for weak D6 and a missing escape analysis; ACCEPT for solid ones). A run only passes if the decision matches exactly.
Stack: Next.js on Vercel, Anthropic for the review, pdf-parse / mammoth / xlsx for extraction, pdfkit for the downloadable report. No signup. The 8D body isn't stored in our database (it's sent to Anthropic for processing). English only, V0.1, advisory only.
Try it in 60 seconds with a synthetic 8D
No 8D of your own? Copy the fictional report below (company names are made up), paste it into https://8d-gate.vercel.app/review?utm_source=devto-sample&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=feedback24h and see what it does with "operator carelessness" as a root cause. Our expected result is a REJECT for an unsupported root cause; tell me if it says otherwise.
Synthetic 8D: brake hose clip escape (click to expand, then copy)
# 8D Report — Brake Hose Clip Dimensional Escape
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| 8D No. | ACME-8D-2026-0142 |
| Customer | Acme Auto — Plant Bratislava |
| Supplier | TierCo Fasteners s.r.o. |
| Part No. | TC-BH-4412 / Clip, brake hose retainer |
| Complaint No. | AA-Q-88921 |
| Date opened | 2026-03-12 |
| Date of this revision | 2026-03-28 |
| Severity | Customer line stop risk (sorted at customer) |
---
## D1 — Team
| Role | Name | Function |
|------|------|----------|
| Champion | M. Horvath | Quality Manager |
| Team lead | P. Novak | Process Engineer |
| Member | A. Kovac | Production Supervisor, Line 3 |
| Member | L. Benes | Incoming / Final Inspection |
| Customer contact | J. Meier | Acme Auto SQE |
---
## D2 — Problem description
On 2026-03-11, Acme Auto Plant Bratislava reported that brake hose retainer clips (TC-BH-4412) from delivery note DN-78441 (shipped 2026-03-04, qty 4,800 pcs) failed to snap onto the hose during vehicle assembly. Operators observed clips that “felt loose” and did not retain the hose after hand fit.
- Symptom: clip opening width oversize; hose retention force insufficient (customer feel-check).
- How detected: assembly station B12, Acme Auto Bratislava.
- Quantity affected at customer: 37 pcs confirmed nonconforming from one tote; full tote qty 500 pcs quarantined by customer.
- Supplier stock: 12,400 pcs on hand (same tooling family) placed on hold 2026-03-12.
- Spec: opening width 12.40 ± 0.15 mm; retention force ≥ 35 N per drawing TC-BH-4412 Rev C.
Problem statement: *Clips from lot L260302A exhibited opening width above upper spec, causing failed hose retention at customer assembly.*
---
## D3 — Containment
1. Customer sorted remaining tote (500 pcs): 37 NOK, 463 OK (customer report dated 2026-03-12).
2. Supplier hold of FG stock 12,400 pcs effective 2026-03-12 14:30 CET (owner: L. Benes).
3. 100% dimensional check of FG stock started 2026-03-13 using digital caliper (opening width). Results to date: 412 / 12,400 checked; 9 NOK found and scrapped. Sort ongoing.
4. No further shipments of TC-BH-4412 until hold release approved by Quality Manager.
5. In-transit: none per logistics (ASN closed).
Break point: last conforming shipment prior to DN-78441 was DN-78102 (2026-02-18).
---
## D4 — Root cause
**Occurrence root cause:** Operator carelessness during setup of the progressive die. The operator did not pay enough attention when adjusting the forming station, which led to an oversized opening width.
**Escape root cause:** Final inspection did not notice the problem.
**Method:** Team discussion on 2026-03-14. Ishikawa sketch prepared (attachment referenced as “Fishbone_v1.pptx” — not attached to this PDF export).
**Why this is the root cause:** Experienced operators normally produce good parts; therefore the issue must be related to attention during setup.
No capability study, setup sheet comparison, or tool wear measurement is included in this revision.
---
## D5 — Corrective actions
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|--------|-------|-----|--------|
| CA1 | Retrain all Line 3 operators on “careful setup” and awareness | A. Kovac | 2026-03-20 | Done 2026-03-19 |
| CA2 | Remind inspectors to check opening width carefully | L. Benes | 2026-03-20 | Done 2026-03-19 |
| CA3 | Post a quality alert on the line board | P. Novak | 2026-03-18 | Done |
Interim action: continue 100% sort of FG until CA1/CA2 complete.
---
## D6 — Implementation & validation
- CA1 completed: training attendance sheet signed by 11 operators (2026-03-19).
- CA2 completed: verbal reminder in morning meeting.
- Effectiveness: “No further customer complaints received since training. Therefore corrective actions are effective.”
- No before/after opening-width distribution, no retention-force retest data, and no process capability after training are provided in this report.
---
## D7 — Prevent recurrence
- Add “be careful during setup” to existing work instruction WI-LINE3-04 (revision pending).
- Share lessons learned in monthly quality meeting (scheduled April 2026).
- Similar parts: “will be reviewed” — list not yet generated.
---
## D8 — Congratulate / close
Team is thanked for fast containment response. 8D proposed for closure pending customer acceptance of this report.
**Residual open items:** FG sort not finished; WI revision not released; similar-part review not started.
---
## Attachments listed (not embedded)
- Customer complaint AA-Q-88921 PDF
- Sort log excerpt (412 pcs)
- Training attendance 2026-03-19
- Fishbone_v1.pptx (referenced, not attached)
What I'm asking for
A comment with what landed and what missed: was the verdict fair, was anything confusing, would you trust it on a real report? Especially valuable if you're an SQE or quality manager. Tell me where it's too lenient.
Top comments (1)
If you try the free check with the sample (or your own redacted pack): what landed / what missed? App: 8d-gate.vercel.app — advisory only.