ISO 9001
On requestQuality management system. The base evidence that processes are documented, controlled and auditable.
Valid certificates sit in the download centre and need no enquiry.
Proven under Download centre →The capability extract shows in thirty seconds what runs as standard and what carries a surcharge.
See capabilities →Send the files and an engineer reviews them against your build — free, before you enquire.
To the data check →Naming a standard is cheap. This page says, for each one, what it actually governs, who holds the evidence — us or the plant — and where to find it. Where we work to something without being certified for it, that is stated just as plainly.
We are an engineering office, not a plant. That distinction decides who holds the certificate for almost every standard here — and it comes up in an audit anyway. So it sits at the front rather than in the small print.
The system standards. They say nothing about an individual board — only about whether the operation building it works reproducibly.
Quality management system. The base evidence that processes are documented, controlled and auditable.
Valid certificates sit in the download centre and need no enquiry.
Proven under Download centre →Quality management for the automotive industry. Requires process capability evidence, sampling and structured problem handling.
We work to IATF-16949-oriented processes — CpK monitoring, PPAP at the level required, 8D reports. That is deliberately not phrased as a certification of our own.
Proven under Quality →Quality management for medical devices. Tightens traceability, change control and record retention.
Carried as a plant certification. For medical projects we select the plant on it and fix the traceability in the order.
Proven under Medical technology →Environmental management system. Governs how an operation records, controls and evidences its environmental impact.
A selection criterion in plant assessment where the application demands it — not carried as a certificate of our own.
Proven under Sustainability →The standards a delivered board is measured against. If a complaint is to be a measurement rather than an opinion, this is where the yardstick sits.
Acceptance criteria for the finished board — what is visibly permissible on the delivered part. Class 2 as standard, Class 3 for elevated reliability.
Fixed in the order rather than left to the plant standard. Which class makes sense when is covered further down.
Proven under Delivery specification →Performance requirements for rigid boards. The counterpart to IPC-A-600: not the visible appearance but the qualification required.
Specified together with the acceptance class. Its classes run parallel to IPC-A-600.
Proven under Delivery specification →Qualification of the solder mask — adhesion, insulation, resistance to soldering and cleaning processes.
Class T as standard, minimum dam ≥ 100 µm.
Proven under Solder mask →Base material specification. The slash sheet after the number identifies the material unambiguously — /21 is standard FR-4.
Laminate and prepreg are named in the order and are not interchangeable without a written agreement.
Proven under FR-4 →The seven types of via protection — tenting, plugging, filling, filled and capped. Four of them matter in practice.
The type belongs in the fabrication notes. Closing from one side only produces voids and is the most common query point.
Proven under Via plugging →Standards that bite before manufacturing. There is nothing to certify here — they decide whether your data is unambiguous and whether a measured number is comparable.
Generic design standard for printed boards: clearances, aspect ratios, layer build-up, dielectric withstand.
The basis of our design guidelines. Where we are stricter than the standard, the reason is given with it.
Proven under Design guide →Current carrying capacity of conductors as a function of width, copper thickness, permissible temperature rise and position in the stack.
The reference for heavy copper sizing. Inner layers carry considerably less current than outer layers of the same width.
Proven under Heavy copper →Data exchange format carrying layer order, netlist and fabrication notes in a single file — rather than spread across Gerber plus a separate sheet.
Preferred over Gerber, on a par with ODB++. Both remove a whole class of ambiguity.
Proven under Data formats →The test methods manual. Defines how a value is measured — Tg by DSC to method 2.4.25, for instance.
The reason two datasheets quoting the same Tg are comparable. Without the method, the number alone is worth little.
Proven under Material values →What hangs on material and delivery. These are usually requested not by engineering but by purchasing, regulatory approval, or a customer further up the chain.
Restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.
Compliant material selection as standard, with a declaration of conformity per delivery.
Proven under Compliance →European chemicals regulation, including the duty to disclose substances of very high concern.
Declaration of conformity per delivery. PFAS status is documented as the regulation develops.
Proven under Compliance →The automotive industry material data system. It expects the build as actually made, not a generic entry.
We create the datasets ourselves, for the build as manufactured.
Proven under IMDS datasets →Flammability class of the base material (94 V-0) and listing of the board as a component (796).
Listing depends on plant and material combination. Where a UL mark is required on the board, it belongs in the fabrication notes.
Proven under Specification →Fire protection in railway vehicles. Requires evidenced fire and smoke behaviour of the materials used.
A material property, not a process certification. Halogen-free builds are the usual route — the material certificate comes from the laminate manufacturer.
Proven under Halogen-free PCBs →Defines "halogen-free" as a limit rather than a marketing claim — chlorine and bromine each below 900 ppm, the sum below 1500 ppm.
Without this standard, "halogen-free" on a datasheet cannot be checked.
Proven under Halogen-free PCBs →The one entry that affects every enquiry and is missing most often. The class changes acceptance criteria, inspection scope and price — not the manufacturing technology. Putting Class 3 on an assembly that does not need it does not buy a better board; it buys tighter inspection and a lower yield.
| Criterion | Class 2 | Class 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Intended for | Equipment with an expected service life where a failure is an annoyance | Assemblies where a failure is not acceptable |
| Typically | Industrial, consumer, most automotive applications | Medical, aerospace, safety-related controls |
| Barrel copper | Class minimum | Higher minimum, evidenced by micro-section |
| Annular ring | Reduced rings permitted | Defined minimum ring, breakout not permitted |
| Repairs | Permitted within limits | Severely restricted to excluded |
| Documentation | Inspection record | Micro-section report and full traceability |
| Effect | Standard price and lead time | Lower yield, higher price, longer inspection |
If you are unsure: Class 2 with our delivery specification on top sits closer to Class 3 than a bare Class 2 does on the points that actually drive failures — without the yield loss across the whole board. Ask us about your specific case.