Failed lot disposition options (batch 2 guide 18)

Key takeaways

1. Decide the visit objective first, because failed lot handling visits answer different questions depending on whether the lot is new, borderline, or already failed.
2. The logic of a factory acceptance test carries over to general QC: verify against agreed criteria while the goods are still controllable^[1].
3. Freeze the specification version, the defect classification, and the packing list before the inspector travels, so verifying counts and container condition stays anchored to agreed criteria.
4. Switching between normal, tightened, and reduced inspection is a core acceptance-sampling idea that rewards suppliers with stable quality histories^[2].
5. ISO 9000 vocabulary helps buyers and factories use the same terms for nonconformity, correction, and corrective action^[3]. Keep this reference in mind when failed lot handling decisions touch regulated characteristics.

Buyers usually choose among four practical paths: sort or rework the lot and re-verify, negotiate a concession for minor issues, downgrade the goods to a less demanding channel, or reject and remake the affected portion.

The loading record from the visit is the anchor of this discussion, since it ties each defect to a criterion, a sample reference, and a photograph, which keeps the negotiation about facts rather than impressions.

The sections below follow the order buyers actually encounter the task, from planning through the visit to the follow-up.

What a failed result actually means

Rework is appropriate when the defect has a defined fix, such as re-stitching, re-polishing, or replacing a component, followed by a focused re-check of the repaired characteristic rather than a full repeat of everything. Factory acceptance testing exists to confirm that equipment meets its purchase specification before it leaves the maker's premises^[1].

A failed sampling result does not automatically condemn the whole lot; it means the number of defects found in the sample exceeded the acceptance number for the agreed AQL, so the lot cannot be accepted on sampling evidence alone.

After the visit, treat the findings as the starting point for supplier development rather than a one-off verdict: share the defect photographs with the factory's production supervisor, agree which workstation or material input produced each issue, and set a date for the factory to report back on the countermeasure.

Disposition paths buyers really use

Use the table as a pre-visit checklist: when every row has an owner and a confirmation time, the failed lot handling visit usually runs to plan. Consistency across orders matters more than perfection in any single lot, so keep the same defect classification and the same sampling logic from one shipment to the next; when the yardstick stays fixed, trends in the reports actually mean something and both sides can see whether quality is improving.

Keeping the shipment plan intact

For regulated characteristics, such as restricted substances or safety functions, disposition options narrow sharply: the lot must either be brought into conformity through verified correction or held back, because paperwork alone cannot cure a substantive failure.

Buyers usually choose among four practical paths: sort or rework the lot and re-verify, negotiate a concession for minor issues, downgrade the goods to a less demanding channel, or reject and remake the affected portion. Letters of credit go smoother with an independent loading supervision service report attached to the document set.

End the visit with a short closing discussion at the loading site, confirming what was found and what happens next, while the evidence is still on the table.

Where the purchase order involves several models or assortments, confirm the breakdown before the visit day so the sample can be allocated proportionally; mixed lots checked against a single blended criterion are a frequent source of disputes that a short clarification message would have prevented.

How sorting and rework decisions compare

1. Read the defect pagesIdentify which characteristics failed and whether the defects cluster or spread across the lot.
2. Choose the dispositionMatch visible separable defects to sorting, fixable defects to rework, and systemic failures to remake.
3. Instruct the factoryWrite down the required correction per defect code and the evidence expected at the return visit.
4. Re-verify on siteCheck the corrected characteristics across the lot and keep a lighter watch on what passed before.
5. Record the historyFile both reports together so the next order starts from facts rather than recollection.

Evidence the factory needs from you

Rework is appropriate when the defect has a defined fix, such as re-stitching, re-polishing, or replacing a component, followed by a focused re-check of the repaired characteristic rather than a full repeat of everything.

Keep the loading record together with the specification and packing list, so the next order with the same supplier starts from documented facts.

Consistency across orders matters more than perfection in any single lot, so keep the same defect classification and the same sampling logic from one shipment to the next; when the yardstick stays fixed, trends in the reports actually mean something and both sides can see whether quality is improving.

Frequently asked questions