For PFMEA owners
Catch Tier-2 process-to-product contamination — automatically
When a PFMEA cause reads "design tolerance too tight for our process," that's blaming product design from the process FMEA. Specwarden's D-101 check catches this pattern, plus D-103 control misclassification and 5 other PFMEA-specific audit failure modes.
How it works
Upload your PFMEA
Drop in your spreadsheet. Specwarden auto-detects PFMEA format from column headers — Process Step, Process Function, Current Process Controls.
D-101 + D-103 run on every row
Deterministic keyword checks catch process-to-product causes and detection-masquerading-as-prevention in under a second. Sonnet then reads every row for deeper contamination patterns.
Findings with specific reframes
Each D-101 finding includes the exact cause text that triggered it and a concrete reframe: replace the design-blame language with a process-side root cause your process team can act on.
Why Specwarden catches what reviewers miss
D-101
the deepest PFMEA moat
Process-to-product contamination is the PFMEA equivalent of DFMEA's supplier-blame pattern. Both are scope violations. Both are audit red flags. Both require a reviewer who understands the DFMEA/PFMEA boundary.
D-103
control method classification catches
In-process detection masquerading as prevention inflates PFMEA quality metrics. Specwarden checks every Prevention Control cell for detection-language keywords that signal misclassification.
Free
on your first 30-row PFMEA
See D-101 and D-103 catches on your own data. Free tier gives you 5 visible findings — if Specwarden catches process-to-product contamination, you'll see it without paying.
Three moat checks that matter
D-101: process-to-product contamination detection
Rule-based keyword detection catches causes that name design tolerances, drawing specs, or engineering ECNs — all scope violations in a PFMEA. Fires on every review, even when AI is unavailable.
D-103: control method classification
100% inspection, pressure test, auto-reject — these are Detection controls. When they appear in the Prevention column, Specwarden flags the misclassification and explains why it inflates your apparent prevention robustness.
D-005: closed-loop validation on implausible reductions
Detection dropping 8 to 1 from "team huddle and reminder posters"? Specwarden flags implausible post-action rating drops that can't be physically justified by the documented action.
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
What a D-101 contamination looks like — and how Specwarden reframes it
Contaminated PFMEA cause (D-101 fires)
“Inadequate design tolerance on shaft OD spec (drawing requires ±0.05mm, but design margin is too tight for our standard honing process capability)”
Correct process-side cause
“Honing wheel wear exceeds 500-cycle replacement interval; bore diameter drifts outside 25mm ±0.02mm tolerance”
Recommended action: “Add Cpk monitoring on bore diameter; reduce honing wheel change interval from 500 to 350 cycles”
The design-tolerance question — whether ±0.05mm is achievable — belongs in the DFMEA. The PFMEA should document what can go wrong in the process and what process controls prevent or detect it.