For PFMEA owners
Find your PFMEA audit risks in 60 seconds
Specwarden catches process-to-product contamination, missing reaction plans, and control method confusion in seconds. Built for manufacturing process engineers at Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers.
How it works
Upload your PFMEA
Drop in your spreadsheet — .xlsx, .xls, or .csv. Specwarden detects PFMEA format automatically from column headers. Works with AIAG FMEA-4 traditional layout.
Review runs in under 60 seconds
Deterministic rule checks run first (RPN arithmetic, field completeness, control method classification), then Claude Sonnet reads every row for process-to-product contamination and missing reaction plans.
Get a report you can act on
Download a PDF or Word report with every finding ranked by severity and a specific fix recommendation. Ready to attach to your process design package.
Why choose Specwarden for PFMEA
D-101
process-to-product contamination — the deepest PFMEA moat
A PFMEA cause that blames design spec instead of a process parameter is an audit red flag. Specwarden detects this pattern across all process steps, even on rows where no one is looking for it.
D-103
control method classification catches
In-process detection masquerading as prevention inflates PFMEA quality scores. Specwarden cross-checks every Prevention Control cell for detection-language keywords.
Zero
files stored server-side
Your PFMEA is parsed inside the request, then immediately discarded. Findings are delivered to your browser and stay there. We store counts and metadata only.
What we catch
Process-to-product contamination detection (D-101)
The most common PFMEA audit fail: a cause that blames a product design tolerance instead of a process parameter. Specwarden flags it every time and suggests the correct process-side reframe.
Control method classification (D-103)
Prevention vs Detection columns are frequently confused in PFMEA. "100% in-process leak detection" is a Detection control — not Prevention. Specwarden catches misclassifications that inflate apparent prevention robustness.
Reaction plan completeness on high-RPN rows (D-102)
High-risk PFMEA rows require a Reaction Plan — the operator's containment response when in-process controls fail. Specwarden flags every Sev ≥ 8 or RPN ≥ 100 row missing this plan.
Built for engineering teams reviewing high-stakes technical documents.
Workflow proof
Reviews engineering documents against risk and compliance criteria
Use-case proof
Designed for FMEA, specs, quality checks, and design review workflows
Beta proof
Private beta feedback from technical reviewers and operators
Process-to-product contamination — the deepest PFMEA moat
When a PFMEA cause reads “design tolerance on shaft OD is too tight for our honing process,” that’s a product design problem — not a process problem. It belongs in the DFMEA. Specwarden flags this contamination pattern (D-101) and recommends the correct process-side reframe.
This is the check most generic AI tools miss because it requires understanding the semantic boundary between DFMEA and PFMEA scope — not just reading the text.
Sample PFMEA outputs
Download a complete sample PFMEA review
A full Specwarden review of an illustrative 32-row PFMEA: the PDF report with every finding, plus the reviewed copy with cells highlighted, threaded comments, and RPN errors auto-corrected in place.
This is what you get on your own PFMEA — in under 60 seconds. Join the waitlist →
Illustrative sample — not real customer data
No PFMEA file yet? Download the PFMEA starter template — pre-formatted with example rows that demonstrate common PFMEA errors.