Does a missed OEM scorecard target automatically mean a nonconformity?

No. SI 5 requires the certification body to add audit time to investigate causes and actions, not to write a finding. Whether a finding follows depends on what the investigation finds in your system. The cost is certain; the nonconformity is not.

How much extra audit time are we talking about?

Trade coverage of the 6th edition puts it at four to eight additional hours. The Rules themselves are paywalled and we have not quoted them. Ask your certification body what they apply, because they are the ones who will charge it.

What is a special audit within 60 days?

If the additional time cannot be fitted into the audit in progress, a separate audit has to take place within 60 calendar days of the closing meeting. That is a second audit event, with the scheduling and cost that implies, triggered by a customer performance figure.

Our scorecard miss was caused by a customer schedule change. Does that help?

It may explain the cause, but SI 5 is triggered by the scorecard result, not by fault. The useful response is the same either way: the adherence series against the customer requirement, the cause of each miss recorded at the time, and the evidence of what changed afterwards. A documented external cause supported by data is a much stronger position than the same claim made verbally.

Which records should we keep outside the quality system for this?

Schedule adherence measured on the customer's definition of the delivery date, stoppage history with cause codes for the equipment involved, preventive maintenance compliance planned against done for those assets, and a performance series that spans each corrective action date. All four are production and maintenance records rather than quality records, and all four are now part of what an SI 5 investigation looks at.

Home

Compliance · IATF Rules 6th edition · status 22 September 2026

IATF Rules 6th edition, SI 5: a bad OEM scorecard is now an audit cost

For quality managers and plant directors at IATF 16949 certified suppliers. What SI 5 changed, what the certification body has to do when your OEM scorecard misses target, and what evidence closes it off.

In shortUnder the IATF Rules 6th edition, sanctioned interpretation 5, a certification body must add audit time when a certified client misses the IATF OEM quality or delivery targets on the OEM scorecard. If the time cannot be added to the current audit, a special audit must follow within 60 calendar days of the closing meeting. The way out is evidence that systemic corrective action was verified effective.

What this is based onThe IATF Rules for achieving and maintaining IATF recognition, 6th edition, effective 1 January 2025, are sold, not published. The sanctioned interpretations issued in November 2025 are published on the IATF Global Oversight site. Nothing below is reproduced. The figure of four to eight additional hours comes from a trade-press analysis, not from the Rules text. Check your certification body's own scheme rules; they prevail.

What SI 5 does

The mechanism is simple and it is automatic. Where a certified client fails to meet the IATF OEM quality or delivery targets shown on the OEM scorecard, the certification body must add audit time to investigate the causes and the actions taken. The only escape is evidence that the systemic corrective actions implemented were verified effective.

The trigger is the customer's scorecard, not an internal KPI and not an auditor's impression. The data comes from outside your quality system.
The response is time, not a finding. Reported at four to eight additional hours in trade coverage of the 6th edition.
If the time cannot be added to the audit in progress, a special audit must be held within 60 calendar days of the closing meeting.
The exemption is evidential. Not "we have a corrective action plan" but "the systemic corrective action was implemented and verified effective".

Two customer requirements make this concrete. Volvo Group requires a screenshot of its online supplier scorecard to be sent to the IATF certification body ahead of the audit, so the certification body sees the scorecard whether or not you raise it. Stellantis publishes its escalation ladder in its customer-specific requirements: warning letter, escalation level 1, escalation level 2, New Business Hold. IVECO requires its suppliers to notify the certification body within five working days of being placed on Controlled Shipment Level 2 or 3. The wall between commercial performance and certification has been coming down for some time; SI 5 removes what was left of it.

The other 6th edition changes that pull in the same direction

IATF Rules 6th edition: changes that increase the evidence burden
Change	Practical effect
Extra time allocated in future audits to verify corrective actions for past nonconformities	A nonconformity is not closed when the response is accepted. It is revisited, with the auditor looking for evidence that it worked.
Corporate multi-site audit-day reduction cut from up to 40% to a maximum of 15%	Group-level systems buy far less relief. Each site carries more of its own audit.
Audit dates confirmed with the client at least 90 days in advance for surveillance, recertification and transfer audits	More notice, which also means fewer excuses for records that are not retrievable.
SI 11 and SI 13: final audit reports and all nonconformity management records from the last three years must be available, including evidence that responses were accepted and verification was carried out	Three years of nonconformity history has to be produceable during the audit, not restored from an archive afterwards.

Source: IATF Rules 6th Edition Sanctioned Interpretations, November 2025, and trade-press analysis of the 6th edition, August 2025.

What "verified effective systemic corrective action" has to look like

This is where most suppliers lose the argument, and the certification-body data says so. In the IAOB nonconformance data presented at the 2025 AIAG Quality Summit, the top two IATF 16949 nonconformances were problem solving (10.2.3) and nonconformity and corrective action (10.2.1). One analysis of that data attributes roughly 60% of the 10.2.1 nonconformities to gaps in reviewing effectiveness, and roughly 41% of the 10.2.3 nonconformities to failure to review and update documented information after the fix.

The patternNothing in the reported top five is a "we did not do it" finding. They are all "we cannot show that we did it" findings: corrective action plans created but not tracked, missing evidence of implementation, missing evidence of effectiveness verification, incomplete monitoring records.

Under SI 5 the evidence has to carry three separate burdens: that the action was systemic, that it was implemented, and that it was effective. Three different records.

Three burdens, three records
Burden	What satisfies it	What does not
Systemic	A root cause stated at process level, with the same cause checked across comparable lines, part families or shifts, and the pFMEA and control plan updated where it applies	A containment action on one machine, and a root cause that names an operator
Implemented	Dated evidence that the change is live: the revised control plan in use, the parameter limit actually enforced, the new check in the record for every shift since	A signed action plan with a due date in the past
Effective	A performance series for the affected machine, characteristic or delivery stream spanning the action date, long enough to show the change held	A statement that no further complaints have been received

The third row is the one that needs data you already had to be keeping. You cannot construct a before-and-after series after the fact. If the action was taken in March and the auditor arrives in November, the evidence is the measured series from January to November with the action date marked on it.

Free tool

OEM Capacity & Audit Evidence Pack

Capacity declaration with demonstrated rate, a run-conditions log for capability studies, an audit evidence index, and an EnPI and baseline sheet. Excel.

Get the evidence pack →

Why schedule adherence and downtime records became certification-relevant

Delivery performance on the OEM scorecard is a logistics number. Under SI 5 it now determines how many hours an auditor spends inside your quality system. That makes the records behind delivery performance part of the certification evidence set, even though they sit in production and logistics rather than quality.

Schedule adherence against the customer requirement, per period, with the cause of each miss. Note that for some customers the delivery date is the arrival date at their goods receiving, not your dispatch date, so the series has to be built on the customer's definition.
Downtime history for the equipment that caused the misses, with stop durations and cause codes captured at the machine. A scorecard miss attributed to "equipment failure" with no underlying stoppage record invites the next question immediately.
The recovery: what the line ran at before, during and after the corrective action, so effectiveness is visible rather than asserted.
Preventive maintenance compliance for the affected assets, planned against done, on schedule. This is the standard maintenance-side evidence request and it is the natural companion to a delivery-miss investigation. Our page on IATF 16949 clause 8.5.1.5 covers the maintenance objectives themselves.

None of this is new as a requirement. What SI 5 changes is the cost of not having it to hand. Before, a poor scorecard was a commercial problem managed with the customer. Now it mechanically converts into audit hours spent examining why, and a supplier that cannot answer quickly pays for the answer in time, in a special audit within 60 days, or in a finding.

What to have ready

Know your scorecard before the auditor doesPull the current OEM scorecard for every certified customer and check it against the target. If a target is missed, assume it will be raised.
Build the miss listEach miss, its date, the cause, the containment, the systemic action and the date it went live. One page per customer.
Attach the seriesFor each systemic action, the measured performance series spanning the action date. This is the effectiveness evidence and the only part that cannot be produced late.
Check the three-year archive is liveSI 11 and SI 13 expect three years of nonconformity management records, including evidence that responses were accepted and verification was carried out, available during the audit.
Use the 90 daysAudit dates are confirmed at least 90 days ahead. That is enough time to close an effectiveness gap with real data, and not enough to invent one.

Questions

Does a missed OEM scorecard target automatically mean a nonconformity?: No. SI 5 requires the certification body to add audit time to investigate causes and actions, not to write a finding. Whether a finding follows depends on what the investigation finds in your system. The cost is certain; the nonconformity is not.
How much extra audit time are we talking about?: Trade coverage of the 6th edition puts it at four to eight additional hours. The Rules themselves are paywalled and we have not quoted them. Ask your certification body what they apply, because they are the ones who will charge it.
What is a special audit within 60 days?: If the additional time cannot be fitted into the audit in progress, a separate audit has to take place within 60 calendar days of the closing meeting. That is a second audit event, with the scheduling and cost that implies, triggered by a customer performance figure.
Our scorecard miss was caused by a customer schedule change. Does that help?: It may explain the cause, but SI 5 is triggered by the scorecard result, not by fault. The useful response is the same either way: the adherence series against the customer requirement, the cause of each miss recorded at the time, and the evidence of what changed afterwards. A documented external cause supported by data is a much stronger position than the same claim made verbally.
Which records should we keep outside the quality system for this?: Schedule adherence measured on the customer's definition of the delivery date, stoppage history with cause codes for the equipment involved, preventive maintenance compliance planned against done for those assets, and a performance series that spans each corrective action date. All four are production and maintenance records rather than quality records, and all four are now part of what an SI 5 investigation looks at.

Sources

Published by TEEPTRAK SAS, which makes production-monitoring and OEE software. Every figure is sourced on the page. Funding rules, standards and reporting duties change: check the official documents before you budget or commit.