Quality Docs Validator
Inspect potential inconsistencies between PFMEA and Control Plan workbooks with explicit, severity-classified findings.
PythonPFMEAControl PlanThe problem
PFMEA and Control Plan documents may appear complete on their own while disagreeing across operations, control methods, special characteristics and reaction plans.
The approach
The local Python CLI reads two XLSX files, matches normalized operations and performs six documented checks. Its findings are potential gaps requiring engineering judgment.
What it includes
- Six explicit documented finding types
- Severity-weighted score and human-readable verdict
- Terminal, Markdown and JSON reports
- Synthetic sample workbooks
What the checker actually reported
The project's committed sample report records six potential findings: three critical, three warnings, and a severity-weighted score of 43/100 (FAIL). This is a documented example, not a live run of the portal.
Examples of recorded findings
- CriticalOperation 20 — Missing reaction plan
The source report flags a high-severity failure mode (S=9) without a reaction plan.
- CriticalOperation 30 — Missing control
PFMEA failure mode(s) are present, but the Control Plan has no control method.
- WarningOperation 40 — Unmatched process step
No corresponding Control Plan row was found.
Source: examples/report.md. Sample inputs are synthetic; findings require professional assessment and do not certify compliance.
Quick start
Commands adapted from the project's documented README. Run from the repository root after cloning it; consult the full README for prerequisites and platform-specific setup.
git clone https://github.com/migmcc/quality-docs-validator.git
cd quality-docs-validator
python -m pip install -e .
qdv pfmea-control-plan --pfmea examples/pfmea.xlsx --control-plan examples/control-plan.xlsx --out report.mdImportant limitations
Not a compliance certification or a replacement for technical review. No web UI, OCR or automated connection to manufacturing systems.