Evidence Structure Available
Use the matrices here to decide which drawings, validation requests, pilot assumptions, and report formats belong in the first supplier review.
Map the records that engineering, procurement, and incoming quality should request before custom actuator samples, EVT/DVT, and pilot release.
Use the matrices here to decide which drawings, validation requests, pilot assumptions, and report formats belong in the first supplier review.
DFM notes, inspection scope, dynamic test plans, and pilot checklists are aligned during an active RFQ or sample program.
Customer names, metrics, photos, CMM files, FAI reports, and serial-level records should appear only after real records are approved for sharing.
Evidence Catalog
Evidence should match the decision being made. A feasibility screen needs a different packet than a pilot-release approval.
| Stage | Evidence | Examples | Buyer Decision | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFQ feasibility | Requirement baseline | Joint map, actuator schedule, CAD package, drawing revision, CTQ list, duty cycle, thermal boundary, protocol, sample quantity, and target ship date. | Is the inquiry specific enough for architecture direction and quote assumptions? | Template and checklist available |
| Sample PO | Mechanical acceptance scope | FAI cover sheet, CMM feature list, datum notes, material and surface treatment expectations, bearing seat checks, runout, flatness, and outgoing inspection plan. | Can the sample be judged against a controlled mechanical baseline? | Scope agreed during RFQ |
| EVT / DVT | Actuator performance validation | Torque-speed or force-stroke curve, thermal-rise setup, backlash or lost-motion method, noise, no-load current, load-cycle notes, and failure boundary. | Does the actuator survive the real robot duty cycle rather than only meeting a catalog peak value? | Real reports require project records |
| Electronics review | Driver, encoder, harness, and FCT proof | Voltage and current window, protocol boundary, encoder calibration, brake control, connector map, harness strain relief, FCT fixture ID, firmware handoff, and calibration record. | Are electrical responsibilities clear enough to prevent integration ambiguity? | Shared under RFQ or NDA when relevant |
| Pilot release | Traceability and quality closure | Serial number binding, drawing and BOM revision, fixture ID, operator or station record where available, NCR log, yield trend, 8D owner, packaging record, and spare policy. | Can a working sample become a repeatable pilot batch with controlled evidence? | Real records require approved program data |
Review Gates
Buyers lose time when proof is requested after samples ship. These gates make the evidence expectation visible earlier.
A supplier-ready RFQ package, missing-data list, and evidence expectations before engineering time is committed.
Evidence to ask: RFQ checklist, drawing baseline, target performance envelope, and validation request matrix.
A clear sample acceptance plan instead of a generic part price.
Evidence to ask: FAI/CMM scope, dynamic test method, lead-time risks, NRE assumptions, and open engineering trade-offs.
Objective results against the operating cycle and robot integration boundary.
Evidence to ask: Torque-speed, force-stroke, thermal-rise, backlash, FCT, burn-in, and issue-log records where applicable.
Repeat-build controls that procurement, engineering, and incoming quality can audit.
Evidence to ask: Revision control, serial traceability, inspection summary, NCR/8D process, packaging record, and change-control owner.
Proof Boundaries
Case Study Slots
These are the next high-value content assets to add when approved program records exist. Until then, they should remain labeled as planned evidence slots rather than implied customer proof.
| Record | What It Would Show | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture decision note | Why a program chose QDD, harmonic, cycloidal, planetary, linear, or hybrid actuation for a specific joint. | Needs approved project summary |
| Thermal derating example | How continuous torque, ambient condition, cooling path, and duty cycle changed the final actuator recommendation. | Needs representative test record |
| Backlash method agreement | How measurement location, reversal load, post-cycle expectation, and pass/fail rule were aligned before DVT. | Needs approved validation note |
| Pilot release record | How drawing revision, serial traceability, inspection summary, NCR log, and packaging rule were closed for a pilot batch. | Needs real pilot package |
Send the actuator baseline and mark which report types your team needs before sample approval, DVT, or pilot release.
No. It is a structured evidence library and buyer review guide. Completed customer case studies, logos, photos, and metrics should be added only after representative records are real and approved for publication.
Start with a controlled drawing baseline, CTQ list, torque-speed or force-stroke target, thermal boundary, validation request, prototype quantity, pilot forecast, and the report types required before sample approval.
They can be discussed during an active RFQ or sample program when the record exists and is approved for sharing. Public pages should not imply that every report is already available for every actuator variant.
Inquiry Email
Include target torque/speed, quantity, and delivery location.
Application Engineer
+8618857971991
Talk directly about drawings, torque-speed targets, and RFQ data gaps.