---

name: vda-6-3-audit description: >- VDA 6.3 Process Audit — conduct or prepare for a process audit using the VDA 6.3 methodology, evaluate process elements P1–P7, calculate degree of fulfillment, classify findings, and generate an audit report. Use when a customer requests a VDA 6.3 audit, when auditing a supplier's manufacturing process, or when preparing for a VDA process audit visit. Covers VDA 6.3 4th edition (2023). license: MIT metadata: author: RBraga01 version: "1.1" iatf-16949: "9.2.2" vda-reference: "VDA 6.3 Process Audit 4th Edition 2023" domain: quality-engineering subdomain: audit industries: automotive,electronics,general status: approved created: "2026-06-06" last_updated: "2026-06-06" updated_by: migmcc reviewed_by: RBraga01 standard_edition: "VDA 6.3 Process Audit 4th Edition (2023)"

VDA 6.3 Process Audit

When to use

Use this skill when:

• Conducting a VDA 6.3 process audit at a supplier or internally
• Preparing for an OEM process audit visit (BMW, VW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Stellantis)
• Auditing a new supplier during qualification
• Responding to a customer concern by conducting a focused process audit
• Evaluating a supplier's manufacturing process capability before SOP

Prerequisites

• Customer audit scope (which process/product to audit)
• VDA 6.3 question catalogue (the auditor works from the standard questions)
• Process Flow Diagram, PFMEA, Control Plan, and Work Instructions for the audited process
• Access to the production area, equipment records, personnel, and quality records

Workflow

Step 1 — VDA 6.3 Structure Overview

VDA 6.3 is organised into 7 process elements (P1–P7):

Element	Name	Applies to
P1	Potential Analysis	New suppliers — evaluates readiness before series production
P2	Project Management	APQP and product/process development process
P3	Planning the Product and Process Development	Design and process planning activities
P4	Supplier Management (Purchasing)	Sub-supplier control and qualification
P5	Process Input / Series	Incoming materials and components
P6	Process Execution / Customer Satisfaction / Service	The manufacturing process itself
P7	Customer Support / Customer Satisfaction / Service	Delivery performance, escalation, field support

For a focused series production audit (most common): P5, P6, P7 are mandatory. P1–P4 are added for new supplier qualification or product launch audits.

---

Step 2 — Rating system

Every question in VDA 6.3 is scored on a 0–10 scale:

Score	Meaning
10	All requirements fulfilled — systematic, effective, and documented evidence exists
8	Requirement largely fulfilled — minor gaps, no systematic risk
6	Requirement partially fulfilled — deviations exist, limited risk
4	Requirement insufficiently fulfilled — significant gaps, risk to quality
2	Requirement not fulfilled — systematic failure, high risk
0	Not applicable OR not fulfilled with no evidence

A score of 4 or less on any question is a deficiency and must be documented with a finding and corrective action requirement.

---

Step 3 — Degree of Fulfillment calculation

For each process element:

Element score (%) = (Sum of all question scores) / (Maximum possible score) × 100

Weighting system (critical): Each question in the VDA 6.3 question catalogue has a pre-assigned weighting factor of 1, 2, or 3. These weights are fixed in the standard — the auditor cannot change them. Questions covering safety-critical topics (error-proofing, special characteristics control, non-conformance segregation) typically carry weight 2 or 3. The maximum possible score per question = 10 × weighting factor.

To calculate the degree of fulfillment correctly:

• Use the official VDA 6.3 question catalogue, which lists each question with its weight
• Sum (score × weight) for all applicable questions in the element
• Divide by the sum of (10 × weight) for all applicable questions
• Do not average raw scores — applying equal weight to all questions is a calculation error that produces incorrect element ratings

If a question is not applicable (N/A), it is excluded from both the numerator and denominator.

VDA 6.3 rating thresholds

Degree of fulfillment	Rating	Interpretation
≥ 90%	A	Process suitable for series production — no significant concerns
75% – < 90%	B	Conditionally suitable — corrective actions required within agreed timeframe
< 75%	C	Not suitable — series production release blocked until corrective action complete

A rating of C blocks SOP — the customer will not release the supplier for series production until re-audit achieves at least B.

---

Step 4 — P6 — Process Execution (the core audit)

P6 is the most extensive element and covers the actual manufacturing process. Key areas:

P6.1 — Process inputs

• Are incoming materials and components controlled?
• Are change management procedures in place and effective?
• Are specifications current and accessible at point of use?

P6.2 — Personnel

• Are operators qualified and trained for the tasks they perform?
• Are training records current?
• Is a qualification matrix maintained and used?

P6.3 — Resources (equipment, tools, gauges)

• Is equipment maintained per a preventive maintenance plan?
• Are calibration records current for all measurement equipment?
• Are work instructions present at every workstation and at the correct revision?

P6.4 — Failure mode prevention (error-proofing)

• Are poka-yoke devices in place for all High-AP failure modes?
• Are error-proofing devices checked at the correct frequency?
• Is the check result documented?

P6.5 — Quality inspections and tests

• Are incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and final inspection defined and performed?
• Are inspection records maintained and traceable?
• Is SPC in place for all special characteristics?

P6.6 — Non-conformance management

• Is non-conforming material identified, segregated, and controlled?
• Is there a defined reaction plan for out-of-control conditions?
• Are non-conformances escalated to quality and documented?

P6.7 — Continuous improvement

• Are quality KPIs tracked (reject rate, scrap, rework, OEE)?
• Are improvement actions driven by data?
• Are lessons learned captured and applied?

---

Step 5 — Conduct the audit

Pre-audit:

• Request all relevant documentation: Process Flow, PFMEA, Control Plan, WIs, maintenance records, calibration records, training records
• Review and identify gaps before the site visit
• Confirm auditor qualification: VDA 6.3 audits require a trained, qualified auditor — internal auditors must hold a recognised VDA 6.3 auditor qualification (VDA QMC certification or OEM-equivalent). An unqualified person conducting the audit invalidates the result.
• Confirm auditor independence: the auditor must not have direct responsibility for the process being audited. Self-assessment by the process owner is not a substitute for an independent audit.

Opening meeting:

• Confirm scope, timing, and audit plan
• Introduce audit team and request the process owner to accompany

Process walk (the audit):

• Follow the process flow physically — start from incoming material, end at shipment
• For each step: observe, ask, verify records
• Ask: "Show me the record for this" — never accept verbal confirmation
• Score each question in real time; document evidence (positive and negative)

Findings classification:

• Score 6: Partial fulfilment — finding documented, corrective action required; deadline typically 90 days
• Score 4: Insufficient fulfilment — significant gap, represents active risk to quality; escalate deadline; customer OEMs often treat score-4 findings on critical questions (P6.4, P6.5, P6.6) as major deficiencies requiring immediate corrective action
• Score 2: Not fulfilled — systematic failure, high risk; corrective action with accelerated timeline required before next delivery
• Score 0: No evidence / not implemented — blocking; re-audit required before SOP release (if P1 applicable)

Closing meeting:

• Present scores and degree of fulfillment per element
• Confirm overall rating (A, B, or C)
• Agree on corrective action deadlines (typically 90 days for B-rating findings; accelerated for score-2 and score-4 findings)
• For B rating: schedule a follow-up audit or evidence review within 3 months to verify corrective actions are implemented — do not close the audit without this commitment in writing
• Confirm re-audit requirements if applicable (mandatory for C rating)

---

Step 6 — Audit report structure

The VDA 6.3 report must contain:

1. Audit information: date, location, auditor, auditee, scope
2. Degree of fulfillment per element (P1–P7 as applicable)
3. Overall rating (A, B, C)
4. Finding list: for each score ≤ 6 — question, observation, evidence, score, deadline
5. Positive findings: best practices worth noting
6. Corrective action plan (CAP): supplier-signed, with root cause and due date per finding
7. Re-audit requirement if C rating

---

Validation criteria

A VDA 6.3 audit is complete when:

• All applicable elements (P5, P6, P7 minimum for series) have been scored
• All findings (score ≤ 6) are documented with evidence
• Degree of fulfillment calculated and overall rating stated
• Corrective action plan signed by supplier quality management
• Re-audit scheduled if rating is C

Common mistakes

• Auditor accepts verbal confirmation as evidence — always request the record
• Skipping the process walk and only reviewing documents — P6 requires observation of the live process
• Not documenting positive evidence — the report must balance findings and strengths
• Calculating degree of fulfillment without applying question weights
• Not confirming error-proofing device checks are being performed at the required frequency
• Closing meeting without confirming the corrective action deadline in writing
• Rating B without scheduling a follow-up to verify corrective actions are implemented

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	Expanded weighting system explanation in Step 3; added auditor qualification and independence requirements; improved findings classification (score 4 vs 6 distinction); added B-rating follow-up timeline