The problem: routine checks queue behind scarce engineering time.
A job arrives with a drawing, a model and a spreadsheet BOM. The drawing calls out revision C, the BOM still references revision B and a purchased component has no approved substitute. An engineer must find those differences before purchasing orders the wrong material or the floor starts work from an outdated package.
The review competes with quoting, customer questions and active production issues. Experienced engineers spend time verifying file names, quantities and standard notes instead of resolving the judgment-heavy questions. A package can wait several days even when the eventual review takes only a short session.
Skipping the queue does not remove the risk. A missed tolerance, an inconsistent unit or an obsolete revision can create scrap, rework or an unsafe release. Automation is useful when it makes checks repeatable and evidence easy to inspect, not when it gives an unsupported all-clear.
Where it shows up
- The same engineer checks every package for basic completeness.
- Drawing and BOM revisions disagree across systems.
- Manufacturing discovers missing notes after release.
- Review comments live in email without a clear disposition.
- Purchasing and production cannot tell which package is approved.
Why it's hard to keep up by hand.
A complete-looking document is not necessarily correct. Checks need a known baseline, explicit rules and an accountable reviewer.
The baseline moves
Customer revisions, internal changes and supplier substitutions all affect what is current. Comparing against the wrong baseline produces a misleading result.
Standards are local
Required notes, preferred materials and inspection criteria depend on your processes. A generic checklist cannot stand in for your release requirements.
Some questions need judgment
Manufacturability, safety and design intent are not just text matches. Uncertain findings need engineering review, with the source detail visible.
How Faraday fixes it.
Faraday separates repeatable package checks from engineering decisions, so reviewers can focus on unresolved issues with the right evidence in front of them.
- Step 1
Assemble the controlled package
Gather the current drawings, BOM, revision history, customer requirements and the standards your team uses. Identify the approved baseline and the package's intended release stage.
- Step 2
Check completeness and consistency
Compare item references, revisions, quantities, units and required documentation. Check defined standards and flag missing or conflicting information instead of assuming it is acceptable.
- Step 3
Present evidence-backed findings
Group issues by severity and owner, pointing back to the relevant document or record. Engineers review the finding, resolve false positives and decide what needs a design change.
- Step 4
Approve and synchronize
The authorized engineer signs off the corrected package. Carry approved revisions and documentation into downstream purchasing and production records, preserving the review history.
Engineering package · Release review
Example data · Findings for engineer disposition
| Check | Evidence | Proposed action | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revision consistency | Drawing C / BOM B | Confirm the current BOM | Design engineer |
| Material specification | Plate grade omitted | Add the approved specification | Responsible engineer |
| Purchased component | Supplier part superseded | Review substitution before release | Engineering / purchasing |
What changes for your team.
| Workflow | Today | With Faraday |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Search folders for the current package. | Assemble records against an explicit baseline. |
| Routine checks | Repeat a manual checklist for every job. | Review consistent checks with supporting evidence. |
| Issues | Scatter comments across emails and markups. | Give each finding an owner and disposition. |
| Release | Assume the latest file is approved. | Require accountable engineering sign-off. |
| Handoff | Discover stale revisions downstream. | Carry approved records into purchasing and production. |
How to measure the impact
Measure queue time, review touch time, first-pass completeness and downstream revision escapes. Track both missed issues and false positives. Shorter reviews matter only if the released package remains correct and engineers can explain the decisions.
Common questions about engineering review.
What is an engineering review?
An engineering review evaluates a design or documentation package against defined requirements before it moves to another stage. Depending on scope, it can cover completeness, revision consistency, manufacturability, inspection needs and customer requirements. The responsible engineer determines acceptance.
What can be checked automatically?
Repeatable checks include missing documents, inconsistent part references, drawing-to-BOM revision differences, quantities, units and required notes. More complex checks need a defined rule and inspectable evidence. An automated finding is an input to review, not a substitute for engineering judgment.
Can AI approve a drawing for production?
The workflow keeps production release with an authorized engineer. Automated checks can help find issues, but an absence of findings does not prove a design is safe or manufacturable. Your existing sign-off and quality requirements still apply.
How does revision control fit into review?
Every comparison needs an identified baseline and a known proposed revision. Reviewers should see what changed, whether related BOM and process records changed with it, and which revision downstream teams may use. A file's modification date is not a reliable approval status.
What data does Faraday need?
The controlled drawing package, BOM, revision and change history, customer requirements, internal review standards and release rules. Relevant item and routing records help connect findings to purchasing and production. Access and document handling should follow your organization's requirements.
Does this replace CAD, PLM or quality systems?
No. Those systems remain responsible for their controlled records and existing approval processes. Faraday coordinates checks and review work around them. The scope of each integration and write-back should be agreed before enabling changes.
How do we start without risking a release?
Begin with previously reviewed packages in a read-only workflow. Compare findings with known review outcomes, identify false positives and omissions, and refine the rules with your engineers. Only then connect the process to an active release stage with human approval.
