An SMT first-article review is a documented decision about whether the initial assembled board matches the released build package well enough to continue the agreed production stage. Check the configuration, component identities, orientation, placement and required inspection evidence. Record unresolved differences and who may accept them before allowing the remaining boards to proceed.
This checklist addresses a first-off assembly review. It does not replace a contractual first-article reporting system, product qualification, process validation or the inspection plan for the rest of the lot. Agree on the meaning of “first article” in the purchase order: a photograph, an inspected assembly and a tested product are different deliverables.
Define the stop point before starting the run
Specify which operation needs approval and what can happen while approval is pending. For example, the team might review component identity and orientation before continuing placement, then review the soldered assembly before releasing subsequent boards through the next stage. The correct sequence depends on the build and the evidence needed. Do not assume that “send a first article” automatically creates a hold point.
Give the approval owner a realistic way to respond. Identify the required files, photographs and records in advance, along with the deputy who can review them. An unanswered email is not an approval. If a decision cannot be reached, the record should show a hold rather than an implied release.
Establish one configuration baseline
Record the board part number, bare-board revision, assembly revision, BOM revision and fitted variant. Include the placement-data version and the assembly drawing that defines orientation and special instructions. These identifiers need not all have the same revision letter, but their combination must be the approved one. A list of filenames without revision control does not establish that relationship.
Identify the actual first-off board by a serial number or another unambiguous reference. Record the relevant production program and inspection-program versions where those are part of the agreed report. This connects evidence to a physical assembly and a specific setup. It also helps distinguish a later corrected board from the originally inspected unit.
Use a reference-by-reference inspection record
The worksheet below is an original planning aid. It is not a reproduction of an IPC acceptance table. Add product-specific checks and refer to the agreed drawings and acceptance criteria rather than inventing numerical limits during inspection.
| Check | Evidence to retain | Reason to hold |
|---|---|---|
| Component identity | Reference designator, approved manufacturer part number and relevant receiving or feeder record | A fitted part cannot be matched to an approved BOM entry or alternate |
| Orientation | Drawing or device-document reference and an image showing the agreed orientation marker | Pin-one, polarity or connector orientation is ambiguous |
| Placement | Reference-specific observations against the released assembly requirements | A component is absent, misplaced or populated in a do-not-fit location |
| Soldered assembly | Inspection method, applicable criteria and recorded findings | The required evidence is missing or a finding remains unresolved |
| Hidden features | Agreed inspection or test evidence for features not directly visible | A photograph is being used to approve a feature it cannot show |
| Special instructions | Verification of variant-specific jumpers, adhesives, hardware or later operations | The assembly differs from the approved process sequence |
| Release decision | Named reviewer, date, scope, exceptions and affected quantity | The approval scope or authority is not clear |
For similar-looking parts, a photograph may establish location without establishing identity. Ask what supporting record ties the material actually loaded to the approved part number. Conversely, a correct feeder record does not by itself show that the assembled board has the intended orientation. These are separate questions and should receive separate evidence.
Specify acceptance criteria before judging the board
The IPC announcement describing J-STD-001 and IPC-A-610 distinguishes soldering process and material requirements from post-assembly acceptance requirements. The documents are often used together. For a project, identify the agreed revision, applicable class and any customer requirements in the build package; a general reference to “IPC quality” is not a complete acceptance instruction.
This guide does not supply the standards’ detailed criteria or claim that a particular class is suitable for your product. The responsible engineering and quality teams must resolve that choice. If the drawing and the inspection instruction disagree, obtain a controlled clarification before dispositioning the board.
Example: a revised connector on an otherwise unchanged BOM
Consider a hypothetical controller whose connector changes to an approved alternative. The new part fits the intended footprint, but its visual orientation marker differs from the original part. The first-off reviewer sees a mismatch with an old photograph and raises a question. The appropriate response is to check the approved alternate, its documentation and the released assembly orientation, not simply to rotate the component until the photographs look alike.
The review record should identify the affected reference, the supporting documents and the final decision. If an assembly instruction or inspection reference needs revision, record that change before continuing. This example illustrates a document-control decision; it is not a customer case or a claim about a completed production run.
Separate first-off release from confidence in the whole lot
One accepted assembly is evidence about that assembly and the reviewed setup. It does not prove that every later board is correct or that every relevant failure mode has been tested. Keep the ongoing inspection plan, test requirements and response to process changes separate from the first-off signoff.
Define which changes require another review: a changed fitted variant, a revised assembly program or a material substitution may affect the approved baseline. The responsible team should decide the trigger and extent of the repeat review. Preserve the original findings and subsequent corrective evidence instead of replacing a failed record with a later passing image.
Prepare a review package the supplier can price
For an SMT assembly inquiry, provide the released BOM, placement data, assembly drawings, fitted variants and the first-off report you expect. State whether customer approval is a hold point and who owns the test program and acceptance decision. List special evidence requirements so they can be included in the proposal rather than discovered after setup.
Use the broader first-build approval checklist to connect the first-off decision to pilot-build results and the final release package. When choosing an electronic manufacturing service, ask how configuration changes and exceptions will be documented for your project.