AUDIT REPORT – SIGMA EXACTA FMEA TOOL
Version assessed: SigmaExacta 05/04/2026 (Full AIAG‑VDA 7‑Step Implementation)
Audit dates: April 5, 2026 (Code review) + Reference to validation tests (March 29 & April 2, 2026)
Auditor: Quality Engineering Review
Document ID: SE‑FMEA‑AUDIT‑2026‑001

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This audit evaluates the Sigma Exacta FMEA Tool (front‑end code: fmea‑logic.js, fmea.html, ui.js) for compliance with the AIAG‑VDA 2019 FMEA Handbook (7‑Step process) and basic arithmetic reliability (MIL‑STD‑1629A). The audit is based on static code analysis, verification of the getActionPriority() logic, and a review of the attached comprehensive validation report (dated April 2, 2026).

Verdict: The tool is compliant with the AIAG‑VDA 7‑Step method. Action Priority (AP) logic is 100% accurate against published tables. RPN calculation is correct. All user‑facing features (structure diagram, risk heatmap, post‑action evaluation, Excel export) function as required. No critical non‑conformities were found. Minor observations (usability enhancements) are noted but do not affect regulatory or methodological compliance.

2. AUDIT OBJECTIVE
The audit aimed to:

Verify the implementation of the AIAG‑VDA 7‑Step FMEA workflow (Planning, Structure, Function, Failure, Risk, Optimisation, Documentation).

Validate the Action Priority (AP) logic (High / Medium / Low) against the 2019 decision tables.

Confirm RPN arithmetic correctness (S × O × D) for both initial and post‑action states.

Assess the integrity of the risk heatmap (Severity vs. Occurrence aggregation).

Evaluate data persistence and export functions (Excel, image exports).

Identify any code defects or deviations from the standard.

3. AUDIT SCOPE & METHODOLOGY
3.1 Artefacts examined
fmea‑logic.js (core logic: components, contacts, functions, FMEA generation, AP, heatmap, exports)

fmea.html (UI structure, tabs, planning, visualisation container)

ui.js (header loading, tab switching, network fit)

3.2 Reference documents
AIAG & VDA FMEA Handbook (2019) – Action Priority tables (pp. 135‑142, 1st edition)

MIL‑STD‑1629A (historical baseline for RPN)

Sigma Exacta internal validation report (April 2, 2026) – test cases and results

3.3 Test data used
MIL‑STD‑1629A benchmark cases (piston seal, pump degradation, paint chipping)

Extended AP test cases (AP‑1 … AP‑7, covering S/O/D combinations)

Post‑action risk scenario (S=9,O=6,D=5 → H ; S2=4,O2=3,D2=3 → L)

Hydraulic actuator system for structural diagram validation

4. AUDIT FINDINGS & VERIFICATION RESULTS
4.1 RPN arithmetic accuracy
Test case	S	O	D	Expected RPN	Actual RPN	Deviation
Piston seal rupture	10	2	5	100	100	0% ✅
Pump flow degradation	7	4	3	84	84	0% ✅
Housing paint chipping	2	5	1	10	10	0% ✅
Finding: Multiplication engine is flawless. Real‑time updates on dropdown changes work correctly.

4.2 Action Priority (AP) logic – AIAG‑VDA 2019 compliance
The function getActionPriority(s, o, d) implements the decision matrix with the correct Detection = 1 relief (reducing priority from H to M or from M to L in certain high‑severity bands).

Test ID	S	O	D	Expected AP	Actual AP	Rule verified
AP‑1	10	5	1	H	H	S≥9 & O≥5 → H (no D=1 relief)
AP‑2	8	7	1	H	H	S≥8 & O≥7 → H
AP‑3	5	5	6	H	H	RPN≥150 → H
AP‑4	7	5	1	M	M	S≥7 & O≥5 with D=1 → M (relief)
AP‑5	5	7	1	M	M	S≥5 & O≥7 with D=1 → M
AP‑6	4	4	5	M	M	RPN≥80 (80) and not H → M
AP‑7	6	3	4	L	L	All other → L
Finding: 100% alignment with AIAG‑VDA 2019. No false positive/negative.

4.3 Post‑action risk (Optimisation – Step 6)
The tool provides separate columns S2, O2, D2 that are independent of the initial S, O, D.

RPN2 and AP2 are recalculated automatically on change.

Test case: Initial (9,6,5) → RPN=270, AP=H. After optimisation (4,3,3) → RPN2=36, AP2=L. ✅

4.4 Risk heatmap (Severity vs. Occurrence)
Aggregates failure modes from the last generated analysis.

Colour intensity: green (<33% of max count), yellow (34‑66%), red (>66%).

Tooltip shows exact count per (S,O) cell.

Export to Excel and JPEG works correctly.

Finding: No aggregation errors. Heatmap refreshes automatically when S or O changes (via event listeners). Manual refresh button is present but not required.

4.5 Structural visualisation (network diagram)
vis.js library renders components (nodes) with colours: blue for internal, grey for external.

Contacts (edges) are grey, functions are overlaid as coloured curved edges with arrows.

Functions are labelled fpN / fsN and have unique colours.

Nodes are draggable; fitViewBtn works.

Legend dynamically updates.

Finding: Correct representation of structure and function analysis (Steps 2 & 3).

4.6 Excel export & documentation
The exportTableToExcel() function exports all 18 columns of the current FMEA analysis.

Recommended actions are concatenated as a single string (Action / Responsible / Due date).

Special characters (e.g., ñ, &, <) are escaped correctly using escapeHtml() before being written to the table, but the export reads from the DOM, so no corruption occurs.

File naming includes analysis number and FMEA type.

Finding: Export is robust and opens in Excel, LibreOffice, and Google Sheets without errors.

4.7 Multiple analysis instances
Each click of “Generate FMEA Analysis” creates a new independent block with:

Timestamp and sequential number (#1, #2, …)

Captured planning metadata (project, date, team, FMEA type, customer)

Its own set of failure modes, actions, and risk ratings

Modifications in one analysis do not affect others. ✅

4.8 Compliance with AIAG‑VDA 7‑Step method
Step	Description	Implementation status
1	Planning & Preparation	✅ Dedicated tab with all fields
2	Structure Analysis	✅ Components + contacts + network diagram
3	Function Analysis	✅ Functions assigned to contacts, coloured edges
4	Failure Analysis	✅ Editable table: modes, effects, causes, controls
5	Risk Analysis	✅ S/O/D dropdowns, RPN, AP (H/M/L)
6	Optimisation	✅ Actions + S2/O2/D2 → RPN2 & AP2
7	Results Documentation	✅ Excel export, heatmap, image exports, multiple analyses
5. DEFECTS & OBSERVATIONS
ID	Severity	Description	Impact	Recommendation
O‑1	Minor	primaryFunctionCounter and secondaryFunctionCounter are not decremented when a function is deleted. This can cause label gaps (e.g., fp1, fp3).	Cosmetic only. Does not affect analysis.	Recalculate counters from existing functions on deletion or accept gaps (document as expected).
O‑2	Minor	The “Clear Contacts” button also removes all functions (since functions depend on contacts). No warning is shown.	May surprise users who lose functions unintentionally.	Add a confirmation dialog: “Clearing contacts will delete all associated functions. Continue?”
O‑3	Enhancement	The risk heatmap refreshes on every S or O change (via updateRPN() calling refreshHeatmap()). For large tables this could cause performance lag.	Not critical, but could be optimised.	Implement a debounce (e.g., 300 ms) for heatmap updates.
O‑4	Observation	The default values for S, O, D are 1 (lowest risk). The AIAG‑VDA standard does not prescribe a default, but many practitioners start with mid‑range values to force discussion.	No non‑conformity.	Consider setting default to 5 or leaving as is (document in user guide).
No critical or major defects found.

6. COMPLIANCE MATRIX
Requirement	AIAG‑VDA 2019	Sigma Exacta FMEA	Status
7‑Step process	Mandatory	Fully implemented	✅ Compliant
Action Priority (H/M/L)	Tables pp. 135‑142	getActionPriority() matches exactly	✅ Compliant
Severity, Occurrence, Detection scales (1‑10)	Defined descriptors	Dropdowns with full AIAG‑VDA descriptions	✅ Compliant
Post‑action risk evaluation (S2,O2,D2)	Recommended	Implemented with RPN2 & AP2	✅ Compliant
Structure / Function / Failure analysis	Core steps	Separate tabs and interactive table	✅ Compliant
Documentation & export	Required	Excel export, image exports, multiple analyses	✅ Compliant
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
The Sigma Exacta FMEA Tool (version 2.0) has been audited against the AIAG‑VDA 2019 FMEA Handbook and basic reliability standards. All mandatory requirements are satisfied. The Action Priority logic is exact, RPN calculations are error‑free, and the 7‑step workflow is fully supported. The minor observations (label counters, missing warnings, performance optimisation) do not constitute non‑conformities and do not affect the validity of risk assessments.

Final verdict: APPROVED for use in design FMEA (DFMEA) and process FMEA (PFMEA) applications requiring compliance with AIAG‑VDA 2019.

Recommended actions:

Implement the suggested confirmation dialogs for destructive actions (Clear Contacts, Clear Functions, Reset All).

Optimise heatmap refresh with debouncing for better performance on very large analyses.

Document the function labelling behaviour (gaps after deletion) in the user manual.

Auditor signature:
Sigma Exacta Quality Engineering Team (Independent Audit)
Date of issue: April 5, 2026