Solution · Customer Experience
OEM warranty returns paired with internal batch data, station logs, and parameter history. Foreman identifies which production window made the failed parts and drafts the 8D root-cause — your quality engineer reviews and signs.
The pain
A return lands from the OEM with a part number, a serial, and a failure description. The quality engineer has to find the production batch, pull the station logs from the historian, cross-reference the shift log to see who was on the line, and reconstruct what the parameters were doing that day — usually four weeks ago, sometimes longer.
The 8D is due in five business days. Most of those days are spent finding the data; almost none on actually deciding what to change. The corrective-action section ends up being a paragraph the engineer wrote last quarter, edited slightly. The OEM accepts it because the format is right, but nothing on the line actually changes.
The pattern across returns is invisible. The same parameter drift, the same station, the same shift configuration shows up in three returns over six months, but nobody connects them because each one was an isolated forensic exercise.
What Foreman does about it
Given the OEM's return record — part number, serial, date code — Foreman traces back to the exact production batch, station, shift, and operator. The reconstruction your engineer used to do by hand happens in seconds.
Built on · Digital Twin
Foreman pulls station-log parameter history for that production window, surfaces what was unusual relative to the SPC baseline, and ranks the most likely failure modes — pressure drift, tool wear, temperature excursion. The hypothesis isn't guessed; it's grounded.
Built on · Decision Layer · Agent Engine
Foreman drafts D2 through D5 of the 8D: problem description, containment, root cause, corrective action — in the format your OEM expects. Your quality engineer edits and signs. The 5-day clock becomes a 5-hour clock.
Built on · Agent Engine
When three returns over six months share a parameter signature, Foreman flags the pattern. The corrective action shifts from 'tighten this batch' to 'change this process' — which is the conversation that actually prevents the next return.
Built on · Decision Layer
What we'd move
Time from OEM return-receipt to a defensible 8D root-cause draft — the engineer reviews and signs, doesn't author from scratch.
Quality-engineering time recovered, on plants with a steady warranty-return cadence — recovered from log-pulling, batch-tracing, and 8D drafting.
Returns linked to production data with shift, parameter, and operator on record — every claim defensible by trail.
* Discovery-stage estimates from quality-engineering walkthroughs with Tier-1/2 plants. Replaced with measured numbers as pilots run.
The one outcome that matters
Not by skipping the analysis — by automating the reconstruction. Foreman does the forensic part; your engineer does the deciding part.
Where it lands
MES & traceability
Wonderware, Opcenter, FactoryTalk, Ignition, or your in-house traceability layer. Foreman reads batch-genealogy and station-log records — read-only.
Historian
OSIsoft PI, Aveva, MQTT brokers, OPC-UA. Parameter history for the production window of every failed part is one query away.
OEM warranty portals
Ford WERS, Stellantis warranty claims, JLR ePQR returns. Foreman ingests warranty-return records and reconciles them against your internal batch register.
We don't replace your quality system — we make the engineer running it twice as effective by collapsing the forensic part of every return into seconds. See the full integration list →
Industry fit
Field notes
A 30-minute call to walk through your warranty-return flow, your 8D cadence, and the time Foreman would have given back to the engineer who wrote that one.
