Digital quality certificate for gearbox assemblies
Vibration, torque, inspection and PLC data lived in separate Excel dumps and SQL databases. We pulled them into one platform and made the quality certificate generate itself — digitally signed, revision-tracked, traceable down to every subassembly.
- manual collation left in the process
- Zeromanual collation left in the process
- quality data streams unified
- 4quality data streams unified
- of rules configurable without a developer
- 100%of rules configurable without a developer
The client is not named on this page. The work, the numbers and the technical detail are described exactly as delivered.
The problem: a certificate assembled by hand, from four systems
A gearbox certificate has to vouch for every subassembly inside it. Here the evidence for that existed — vibration, torque, inspection and PLC data were all being captured — but it was scattered across Excel dumps and SQL databases, so producing one certificate meant someone extracting and interpreting all of it by hand.
Disparate quality data silos
Vibration, torque, inspection and PLC data were scattered across Excel dumps and SQL databases, each requiring manual extraction and interpretation.
Complex assembly hierarchy
Gearboxes and their multi-level subassemblies had no centralised quality traceability, so proving a chain of evidence meant reconstructing it each time.
Manual deviation handling
Identifying and approving deviations happened offline, producing inconsistent documentation and no reliable record of who approved what.
Inefficient certificate generation
Every certificate required manual consolidation of multi-source data — slow, and with error risk at each hand-off.
High dependency on the development team
Adding a new data source or changing a validation rule required backend code changes, so quality could not adapt without a release.
The system we built
The hard part was never the certificate document — it was the evidence behind it. So the system is built as a data pipeline that ends in a signed artefact, with the validation logic held in configuration rather than code.
Sources
- SQL databasesinspection, PLC
- Excel dumpsvibration, torque
Ingestion
- Configurable sync servicesper source
- Central PostgreSQLone quality record
Logic
- YAML metrics enginethresholds, mapping, pass/fail
- Assembly drilldowngearbox → subassembly
- Deviation approvalrole-based, signed
Output
- Digital quality certificatesecure hash key
- Revision trackingautomatic
- 1
Unified quality data platform
Configurable sync services connect the SQL and Excel-based sources into a central PostgreSQL system, so the certificate is generated from one record rather than reassembled from four.
- 2
Dynamic assembly drilldown
Users load a main assembly and walk down into its subassemblies with the linked quality data and deviation status attached at every level.
- 3
Configurable metrics engine
Validation rules, thresholds, data mapping and pass/fail criteria are defined in YAML rather than hardcoded — the point being that the client’s own team can change them.
- 4
Deviation approval workflow
Role-based approval with digital signatures, timestamps and remark logs, so a deviation carries its own audit trail instead of living in an email thread.
- 5
Digital certificate generation
Permitted users generate tamper-proof certificates carrying a secure hash key, with revisions tracked automatically.
What changed
Zero manual collation
Data ingestion and validation across every quality source runs automatically. Nobody assembles evidence by hand any more.
Tamper-proof certificates
Hash-keyed, digitally signed and revision-tracked, so the document itself is the proof rather than a summary of proof held elsewhere.
Configurable without us
The client adds data sources and changes validation logic through configuration. No development ticket, no release cycle, no dependency on our team.
End-to-end traceability
From the main gearbox down through nested subassemblies, with deviations visible at the level they occurred.
Reduced approval time
Conditional approvals and certificate generation both run through a defined workflow instead of an offline chase.
Systems that outlive the engagement
The configurable metrics engine was the argument we had to win on this project. It is faster, in the short term, to hardcode a client’s rules — and it guarantees they come back to us every time a threshold changes.
We would rather build the thing that keeps working after we leave. That instinct runs through everything we make, including our own products.
Certificates still assembled by hand?
If producing one compliance document means pulling data out of three or four systems, the document is not the problem. Tell us where your quality data actually lives.