Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR)
When to use
Use this skill when:
- A supplier NCR requires a formal corrective action (beyond simple return/replacement)
- A supplier has delivered the same non-conformance twice or more
- A non-conformance has caused a production line stoppage, customer complaint, or field failure
- A supplier's quality performance score falls below the defined threshold
- An OEM customer issues a concern that is traced to a sub-supplier
- Preparing a SCAR, evaluating a supplier's 8D response, or conducting an effectiveness review
Prerequisites
- Non-conformance documented (NCR or equivalent) with: part number, description, quantity, measured evidence
- Supplier code, contact name, and corrective action coordinator identified
- SCAR response timeline agreed (typically 24h for D3, 30 days for full 8D)
- Historical data: previous SCARs, PPM trend, quality score for this supplier
Workflow
Step 1 — Escalation criteria: when does an NCR become a SCAR?
Issue a SCAR when any of the following conditions are met:
| Trigger |
Description |
| Severity — Critical |
Non-conformance affects safety, regulatory compliance, or field function |
| Severity — Customer impact |
Non-conformance reached the end customer or caused a production line stop |
| Recurrence |
Same defect or same part rejected for the second time within 12 months |
| Volume |
Rejection of an entire lot or >5% of a delivery |
| Systemic risk |
Evidence that the supplier's process or system is inadequate (missing controls, no inspection, operator error on SC characteristic) |
| Customer escalation |
An OEM customer has issued a concern traceable to this supplier |
Do NOT issue a SCAR for every NCR — use NCR + return for minor first-occurrence issues and reserve SCAR for systemic or high-risk situations.
Step 2 — Write the SCAR
The SCAR document must contain:
Header:
- SCAR number (unique, traceable)
- Date issued
- Supplier name, supplier code, contact person
- Issued by (supplier quality engineer name)
Non-conformance description:
- Part number and revision
- Delivery reference (PO number, lot number, delivery note)
- Quantity delivered / quantity non-conforming / % affected
- Defect description in objective-evidence language (measured values vs. specification — not opinions)
- Customer impact (if applicable): production stop, customer complaint, field return
- Reference to the NCR (attach or link)
Response requirements:
Specify exactly what the supplier must provide and by when:
| Deliverable |
Typical deadline |
| D3 Immediate Containment Action (ICA) |
24–48 hours |
| D4 Root Cause (occurrence AND escape) |
7–14 days |
| D5–D6 Permanent Corrective Actions with evidence |
30 days |
| D7 Systemic prevention (PFMEA, CP, WI updates) |
30 days |
| Full 8D report |
30 days |
Always require TWO root causes: why the defect was produced (occurrence) AND why it was not detected (escape).
Containment verification:
State that the supplier must confirm:
- All suspect stock at their facility has been identified and quarantined
- All stock in transit has been recalled or placed on hold
- All stock at your facility has been segregated (include quantity)
- A containment verification plan is in place before any further shipments are accepted
Step 3 — Evaluate the supplier's 8D response
Use the 8D Evaluator methodology (skill: 8d-problem-solving) to review the supplier's response. Focus on the most common SCAR-specific failures:
D3 — Containment:
- Is the containment in PAST TENSE? (If it says "we will inspect going forward" — reject)
- Does it cover all locations (supplier, transit, your facility, customer)?
- Is there a verification result (quantity sorted, quantity rejected, quantity cleared)?
D4 — Root cause:
- Are BOTH causes identified: occurrence (why produced) AND escape (why not caught)?
- Is the root cause supported by evidence, or is it opinion?
- Reject: "human error", "operator oversight", "customer changed specs" — always ask why it was possible
- Verify: if the supplier claims "operator error", ask why the error was not detected by the control plan
D5 — Permanent corrective action:
- Does the PCA directly address the confirmed root cause?
- Is "retrain the operator" the only action? If so, reject — training is not a systemic fix
- Is there a poka-yoke or process change that makes the defect impossible or immediately detectable?
D7 — Systemic prevention:
- Has the PFMEA been updated to reflect the failure mode and new controls?
- Has the Action Priority (AP) been revised in the PFMEA after verified corrective action? The revised AP must be lower than the original or documented with justification — AP revision is only valid after D6 effectiveness is confirmed, not at planning stage.
- Has the Control Plan been updated?
- Have Work Instructions been updated?
- Has horizontal deployment been considered (same process at other lines/plants)?
D6 — Verification:
- Is there production data showing the PCA is effective?
- What quantity was run? Over what period?
- What is the measured improvement (before/after comparison)?
Step 4 — Issue a SCAR response rejection
If the supplier's 8D response does not meet the gate criteria, reject it formally:
Rejection notice must specify:
- Which discipline(s) failed and why (specific, not generic)
- What is required in the revised response
- Revised deadline for resubmission
Do not accept a response that:
- Has no evidence of D3 completion (only a plan)
- States "human error" as the final root cause without systemic analysis
- Lists only training as the PCA
- Has no PFMEA or CP update in D7
- Shows no production data in D6
Step 5 — Effectiveness verification
30–90 days after PCA implementation, verify that the corrective action is effective:
Methods:
- Monitor incoming quality data: zero recurrence of the same defect in the next X deliveries
- Review updated PFMEA and Control Plan (request current revision, verify D4 failure mode is addressed)
- On-site verification: audit the specific process step where the defect occurred (use VDA 6.3 P6 questions for that step)
- Request production data showing Cpk improvement on the relevant characteristic
Close the SCAR when:
- Zero recurrence of the same non-conformance for the agreed monitoring period (typically 3–6 months)
- Updated PFMEA, CP, and WI documents received and verified
- Effectiveness data reviewed and accepted
If recurrence occurs during monitoring:
- Escalate to supplier management (not just quality coordinator)
- Consider: production stop, new supplier qualification, customer notification
- Issue a new SCAR referencing the previous one as evidence of systemic failure
Step 6 — Supplier performance tracking
Link every SCAR to the supplier's quality performance record:
- PPM trend (Parts Per Million non-conforming)
- SCAR open count and average response time
- Closure rate (closed on time vs. overdue)
- Recurrence rate (same defect within 12 months of a previous SCAR)
Suppliers with repeated SCARs or recurrences should be placed on:
- Controlled shipping — every delivery inspected before acceptance (in automotive: CS1 = supplier-managed 100% sort; CS2 = customer-managed sort at supplier's cost)
- Supplier improvement plan — formal APQP-style corrective programme
- Qualification review — potential re-qualification or replacement
Warranty cost recovery / debit note risk: In automotive OEM supply chains, SCARs that result in field failures or warranty claims can trigger financial recovery. The OEM issues a warranty debit note to the Tier 1, who cascades it to the responsible sub-supplier via SCAR. Each SCAR must therefore document whether the non-conformance caused any field or warranty cost — this determines whether cost recovery applies. A SCAR without this assessment is incomplete for OEM reporting purposes. If warranty cost recovery is raised, escalate immediately to commercial and legal before responding to the OEM.
Validation criteria
A SCAR is closed when:
- Full 8D submitted with both root causes confirmed (occurrence AND escape)
- Permanent corrective action verified with production data (D6)
- PFMEA, Control Plan, and Work Instructions updated and received (D7)
- No recurrence of the same non-conformance during the agreed monitoring period
- Closure signed off by Supplier Quality Engineer and documented in the supplier record
Common mistakes
- Issuing a SCAR for every NCR — dilutes the severity signal; suppliers stop taking SCARs seriously
- Accepting a D3 response that is a plan ("we will inspect") rather than a completed action
- Closing the SCAR when the 8D is submitted rather than when effectiveness is verified
- Accepting "human error" or "operator training" without requiring a systemic root cause
- Not updating the supplier performance record — next engineer doesn't know the history
- Allowing the SCAR to stay open indefinitely with no escalation — sets the precedent that deadlines are negotiable
Output Format
At the start of each use, ask the user:
"How would you like to receive the output?
A — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy)
B — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word)
C — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)
Default: A."
Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.
Changelog
| Version |
Date |
Author |
Change |
| 1.0 |
2026-06-06 |
@RBraga01 |
Initial release |
| 1.1 |
2026-06-06 |
@migmcc |
Added AP revision check in D7 evaluation; added warranty cost recovery / debit note risk in Step 6; added CS1/CS2 controlled shipping reference |
1---2name: supplier-scar3description: >-4 Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR) — escalate a supplier non-conformance to a formal5 corrective action request, define response requirements, evaluate the supplier's 8D response,6 and verify effectiveness. Use when an NCR escalates to a SCAR, when a supplier delivers7 repeated non-conformances, or when a field failure is traced to a supplier. Covers ISO 9001 §8.48 and IATF 16949 §8.4.1.9license: MIT10metadata:11 author: RBraga0112 version: "1.1"13 iso-9001: "8.4, 10.2"14 iatf-16949: "8.4.1, 10.2.3"15 domain: quality-engineering16 subdomain: supplier-quality17 industries: automotive,electronics,aerospace,medical,general18 status: approved19 created: "2026-06-06"20 last_updated: "2026-06-06"21 updated_by: migmcc22 reviewed_by: RBraga0123 standard_edition: "ISO 9001:2015 §8.4 / IATF 16949:2016 §8.4.1"24---2526# Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR)2728## When to use2930Use this skill when:31- A supplier NCR requires a formal corrective action (beyond simple return/replacement)32- A supplier has delivered the same non-conformance twice or more33- A non-conformance has caused a production line stoppage, customer complaint, or field failure34- A supplier's quality performance score falls below the defined threshold35- An OEM customer issues a concern that is traced to a sub-supplier36- Preparing a SCAR, evaluating a supplier's 8D response, or conducting an effectiveness review3738## Prerequisites3940- Non-conformance documented (NCR or equivalent) with: part number, description, quantity, measured evidence41- Supplier code, contact name, and corrective action coordinator identified42- SCAR response timeline agreed (typically 24h for D3, 30 days for full 8D)43- Historical data: previous SCARs, PPM trend, quality score for this supplier4445## Workflow4647### Step 1 — Escalation criteria: when does an NCR become a SCAR?4849Issue a SCAR when any of the following conditions are met:5051| Trigger | Description |52|---------|-------------|53| Severity — Critical | Non-conformance affects safety, regulatory compliance, or field function |54| Severity — Customer impact | Non-conformance reached the end customer or caused a production line stop |55| Recurrence | Same defect or same part rejected for the second time within 12 months |56| Volume | Rejection of an entire lot or >5% of a delivery |57| Systemic risk | Evidence that the supplier's process or system is inadequate (missing controls, no inspection, operator error on SC characteristic) |58| Customer escalation | An OEM customer has issued a concern traceable to this supplier |5960Do NOT issue a SCAR for every NCR — use NCR + return for minor first-occurrence issues and reserve SCAR for systemic or high-risk situations.6162---6364### Step 2 — Write the SCAR6566The SCAR document must contain:6768**Header:**69- SCAR number (unique, traceable)70- Date issued71- Supplier name, supplier code, contact person72- Issued by (supplier quality engineer name)7374**Non-conformance description:**75- Part number and revision76- Delivery reference (PO number, lot number, delivery note)77- Quantity delivered / quantity non-conforming / % affected78- Defect description in objective-evidence language (measured values vs. specification — not opinions)79- Customer impact (if applicable): production stop, customer complaint, field return80- Reference to the NCR (attach or link)8182**Response requirements:**83Specify exactly what the supplier must provide and by when:8485| Deliverable | Typical deadline |86|-------------|-----------------|87| D3 Immediate Containment Action (ICA) | 24–48 hours |88| D4 Root Cause (occurrence AND escape) | 7–14 days |89| D5–D6 Permanent Corrective Actions with evidence | 30 days |90| D7 Systemic prevention (PFMEA, CP, WI updates) | 30 days |91| Full 8D report | 30 days |9293Always require TWO root causes: why the defect was produced (occurrence) AND why it was not detected (escape).9495**Containment verification:**96State that the supplier must confirm:97- All suspect stock at their facility has been identified and quarantined98- All stock in transit has been recalled or placed on hold99- All stock at your facility has been segregated (include quantity)100- A containment verification plan is in place before any further shipments are accepted101102---103104### Step 3 — Evaluate the supplier's 8D response105106Use the 8D Evaluator methodology (skill: `8d-problem-solving`) to review the supplier's response. Focus on the most common SCAR-specific failures:107108**D3 — Containment:**109- Is the containment in PAST TENSE? (If it says "we will inspect going forward" — reject)110- Does it cover all locations (supplier, transit, your facility, customer)?111- Is there a verification result (quantity sorted, quantity rejected, quantity cleared)?112113**D4 — Root cause:**114- Are BOTH causes identified: occurrence (why produced) AND escape (why not caught)?115- Is the root cause supported by evidence, or is it opinion?116- Reject: "human error", "operator oversight", "customer changed specs" — always ask why it was possible117- Verify: if the supplier claims "operator error", ask why the error was not detected by the control plan118119**D5 — Permanent corrective action:**120- Does the PCA directly address the confirmed root cause?121- Is "retrain the operator" the only action? If so, reject — training is not a systemic fix122- Is there a poka-yoke or process change that makes the defect impossible or immediately detectable?123124**D7 — Systemic prevention:**125- Has the PFMEA been updated to reflect the failure mode and new controls?126- Has the Action Priority (AP) been revised in the PFMEA after verified corrective action? The revised AP must be lower than the original or documented with justification — AP revision is only valid after D6 effectiveness is confirmed, not at planning stage.127- Has the Control Plan been updated?128- Have Work Instructions been updated?129- Has horizontal deployment been considered (same process at other lines/plants)?130131**D6 — Verification:**132- Is there production data showing the PCA is effective?133- What quantity was run? Over what period?134- What is the measured improvement (before/after comparison)?135136---137138### Step 4 — Issue a SCAR response rejection139140If the supplier's 8D response does not meet the gate criteria, reject it formally:141142**Rejection notice must specify:**143- Which discipline(s) failed and why (specific, not generic)144- What is required in the revised response145- Revised deadline for resubmission146147Do not accept a response that:148- Has no evidence of D3 completion (only a plan)149- States "human error" as the final root cause without systemic analysis150- Lists only training as the PCA151- Has no PFMEA or CP update in D7152- Shows no production data in D6153154---155156### Step 5 — Effectiveness verification15715830–90 days after PCA implementation, verify that the corrective action is effective:159160**Methods:**161- Monitor incoming quality data: zero recurrence of the same defect in the next X deliveries162- Review updated PFMEA and Control Plan (request current revision, verify D4 failure mode is addressed)163- On-site verification: audit the specific process step where the defect occurred (use VDA 6.3 P6 questions for that step)164- Request production data showing Cpk improvement on the relevant characteristic165166**Close the SCAR when:**167- Zero recurrence of the same non-conformance for the agreed monitoring period (typically 3–6 months)168- Updated PFMEA, CP, and WI documents received and verified169- Effectiveness data reviewed and accepted170171**If recurrence occurs during monitoring:**172- Escalate to supplier management (not just quality coordinator)173- Consider: production stop, new supplier qualification, customer notification174- Issue a new SCAR referencing the previous one as evidence of systemic failure175176---177178### Step 6 — Supplier performance tracking179180Link every SCAR to the supplier's quality performance record:181- PPM trend (Parts Per Million non-conforming)182- SCAR open count and average response time183- Closure rate (closed on time vs. overdue)184- Recurrence rate (same defect within 12 months of a previous SCAR)185186Suppliers with repeated SCARs or recurrences should be placed on:187- **Controlled shipping** — every delivery inspected before acceptance (in automotive: CS1 = supplier-managed 100% sort; CS2 = customer-managed sort at supplier's cost)188- **Supplier improvement plan** — formal APQP-style corrective programme189- **Qualification review** — potential re-qualification or replacement190191**Warranty cost recovery / debit note risk:** In automotive OEM supply chains, SCARs that result in field failures or warranty claims can trigger financial recovery. The OEM issues a warranty debit note to the Tier 1, who cascades it to the responsible sub-supplier via SCAR. Each SCAR must therefore document whether the non-conformance caused any field or warranty cost — this determines whether cost recovery applies. A SCAR without this assessment is incomplete for OEM reporting purposes. If warranty cost recovery is raised, escalate immediately to commercial and legal before responding to the OEM.192193---194195## Validation criteria196197A SCAR is closed when:198- Full 8D submitted with both root causes confirmed (occurrence AND escape)199- Permanent corrective action verified with production data (D6)200- PFMEA, Control Plan, and Work Instructions updated and received (D7)201- No recurrence of the same non-conformance during the agreed monitoring period202- Closure signed off by Supplier Quality Engineer and documented in the supplier record203204## Common mistakes205206- Issuing a SCAR for every NCR — dilutes the severity signal; suppliers stop taking SCARs seriously207- Accepting a D3 response that is a plan ("we will inspect") rather than a completed action208- Closing the SCAR when the 8D is submitted rather than when effectiveness is verified209- Accepting "human error" or "operator training" without requiring a systemic root cause210- Not updating the supplier performance record — next engineer doesn't know the history211- Allowing the SCAR to stay open indefinitely with no escalation — sets the precedent that deadlines are negotiable212213## Output Format214215At the start of each use, ask the user:216217> "How would you like to receive the output?218> **A** — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy)219> **B** — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word)220> **C** — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)221>222> Default: A."223224Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.225226## Changelog227228| Version | Date | Author | Change |229|---------|------|--------|--------|230| 1.0 | 2026-06-06 | @RBraga01 | Initial release |231| 1.1 | 2026-06-06 | @migmcc | Added AP revision check in D7 evaluation; added warranty cost recovery / debit note risk in Step 6; added CS1/CS2 controlled shipping reference |