Nexo Quality

A system for handling supplier non-conformances in the automotive industry. The challenge wasn't designing screens. It was making responsibilities, states and decisions auditable in a system with multiple roles.

Open the productRead the manual (PDF)
Role
Product Designer, end-to-end project, built with AI agents (Product Studio)
Outcome
A sensitive decision needs two approvals, the supplier sees only what was released and every action leaves a record.
Type
Concept project. Fictional company and data
Validation
Evaluated with AI and 12 operational scenarios, not tested with real users
Step 1 of the flow. Open a case: “Summary” and “Timeline” work in every case.

Interactive demo: it's the product in HTML, not an image.

Skip the demo
Search Nexo…CtrlK

Cases

Default sort: Priority
Investigationno active flagsPriority:HighP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant SP1
TriageCriticalPriority:HighJ. Souza (SQE) · Plant SP1
Waiting on supplierBlockedPriority:HighP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant RS1
Internal analysisCriticalEscalatedPriority:HighJ. Souza (SQE) · Plant SP1
Waiting on supplierno active flagsPriority:HighP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant RS1
Containmentno active flagsPriority:MediumP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant MG1
InvestigationOverduePriority:MediumJ. Souza (SQE) · Plant SP2
Implementationno active flagsPriority:MediumP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant SP2
Waiting on supplierno active flagsPriority:MediumJ. Souza (SQE) · Plant SP1
Verificationno active flagsPriority:LowJ. Souza (SQE) · Plant MG1
Closedno active flagsPriority:LowP. Rocha (SQE) · Plant SP1
NewIncomplete dataPriority:—— unassigned — · Plant SP1

NC-000123 — Clearance out of specification — suspension bushing

TriageCriticalPlant SP1Owner: J. Souza (SQE)Priority:High

Summary: Initial data recap

Material/Part
PN-55019-B · Rear suspension bushing (Rev. B)
Lot
L-FORN-2290 / L-INT-5541
Supplier
AutoPeças Zenith S.A., Sorocaba/SP
Material criticality
High
Initial segregation
Yes, 2026-09-12 08:40, by R. Nunes

Severity

Proposed severity (Inspector)
High
Confirmed severity (SQE)
Critical
Recorded justification
Potential suspension safety impact — raised to Critical by J. Souza.

Critical severity: the Critical flag becomes visible to the Coordinator to confirm/act (BR-14).

Problem Solving scope

Priority

Proposed priority
High
Why?

Factors: material criticality (High) + proposed severity (High) + lot volume.

Override

Outside this role's approval authority — priority override (SQE/Coordinator).

— no override —

Actions — Waiting on you

A crop of the product's Actions screen, as SQE P. Rocha sees it.

NC-000890·Corrective action·Submit Corrective action evidence

Incorrect engine mount fastening — in implementation

Owner: SQE P. RochaDue date: 2026-09-14Task status: In progressNo blocker

Platform

Web, desktop first

Accessibility

WCAG 2.2 AA as the floor

Period

September 4 to 27, 2026 (24 days)

Highlights

A purchased part arrives out of spec, and the defect can be in stock, on the line or already in vehicles. The quality engineer builds the picture across the ERP, spreadsheets, email and meetings. Nexo sits on top of those systems.

NC

Non-conformance: the case of a part with a problem.

Containment

The immediate action that stops the problem.

Disposition

What happens to the affected material.

Authority

Who can approve what.

Seven roles, each with its own view of the case

A part arrives defective. The inspector records the lot and the supplier quality engineer (SQE) runs the case.

The 21 actions each have a rule for who performs them and in which state.

Receiving inspector

Records lot and evidence.

Supplier quality engineer (SQE)

Runs the case.

Quality coordinator

Authorizes, approves authority, closes critical cases.

Product engineering

Approves the technical merit.

Supplier

Sees only what was released.

Logistics and production

Carries out physical containment.

Auditor

Reviews and exports the trail.

Who approves and what the supplier sees

Two approvals for sensitive decisions

Situation
The alternative was a single approver, which concentrated too much risk on a critical material.
Decision
Engineering approves the technical merit and the coordinator approves authority and quantity; the decision moves forward only with both. Criterion: separate who understands the part from who answers for the volume.
Trade-off
Cost: the flow gets slower. Consequence: no sensitive decision moves forward on a single approval.
Step 2 of the flow. Approve as Coordinator and as Engineering to let the case move forward.
Skip the demo

Disposition (by Lot quantity)

Lot (reference)
LF-MP-2026-0913 / LI-8842
Type
Scrap
Quantity
1,870 units in stock
Reason
Undersized diameter cannot be safely reworked on a structural brake component.

Defined by: SQE P. Rocha

Approval (dual — BR-03)

Coordinator
approved
Engineering
approved

Both approvals are required. From the first approval on, type/quantity/reason are locked.

In this demo, both approvals start pending so you can try the flow. In this case, they had already been completed.

The supplier only sees what was released

Situation
The supplier is external but works on the same case as the team, and internal decision data cannot leak.
Decision
Nothing is visible by default, instead of showing everything and hiding what is internal. Someone releases each document and field, with a preview of the supplier’s screen. Criterion: internal data never leaves without a release.
Trade-off
Cost: releasing takes one extra step. Consequence: no internal data leaves by default.
See the supplier view in the demo

Six candidate areas became two

Of six candidate areas, only Cases and Actions held up against the needs; the rest became context. The cost: a supplier on its own can only be reached through a case.

Turn on a context pill to see where it lives inside the case.

Context inside the case

Navigation areas

62

Suppliers

Case NC-000123, Summary tab, Supplier field:

Supplier
AutoPeças Zenith S.A., Sorocaba/SP
view Supplier →

Every action leaves a record

Step 3 of the flow. Open "View full trail" or "Export trail" to see what the Auditor reviews.
Skip the demo

Timeline / Audit

Complete, immutable, cumulative history (including when Cancelled).

Export trail

Read-only, simulated preview — no file is generated. Exporting does not change data or create a new Timeline event.

Generated by P. Rocha — SQE.

Key data

Material/Part
PN-77410-B · Brake caliper metal bracket (Rev. B)
Supplier
MetalParts Joinville, Joinville/SC
Lot
LF-MP-2026-0913 / LI-8842
Severity
High
Disposition
Scrap — 1,870 units in stock
Root cause
Machining tool wear (drill bit) at the supplier, beyond recommended tool life, with no alert from the preventive maintenance system (confirmed by 8D response).
Corrective action
Shorter machining tool replacement interval + 100% dimensional inspection on the next 3 lots at the supplier.
2026-10-01 09:00
2 of 3 verification lots inspected with no findings; third lot still in transit — closure gate (BR-22) not yet met.
2026-09-27 09:00
Implementation evidence recorded — advanced to Verification.
2026-09-20 10:00
Disposition (Scrap), root cause and Corrective action defined — advanced to Implementation.
2026-09-20 09:00
Review completed — all Response blocks accepted (BR-07). Engineering technical opinion recorded.
2026-09-19 16:00
Supplier response received (version 1) — advanced to Internal analysis for review.
2026-09-14 09:00
Advanced to Waiting on supplier; Full 8D request issued with due date.

AI findings: 33 of 34 fixes applied

Four AI evaluators and 12 operational scenarios pointed to rule failures.

Item Q11 remains: the Recurrent and Critical flags have no human record. The before is described, not captured.

Supplier visibility

Before

Releasing the lot field exposed internal decision data.

In the product

The supplier sees only what was released.

See it in the product
Skip the demo

Shared context package: 3/5 fields shared

Defect
Dimensional · Diameter out of tolerance · Suspected tool wearShared
Material/Part
PN-70021-E · Drive shaftShared
Lot
L-FORN-9931Shared
Containment
Lot holdInternal
Task
Supplier — Transmix Drivetrain · due 2026-09-09 · CompletedInternal

Closure

Before

You could close a case by ticking three boxes, with no root cause or corrective action.

In the product

Closing now checks for a root cause, a corrective action and effectiveness.

See it in the product
Skip the demo

BR-22 exit gate (5 components)

BR-22: containment + disposition + root cause + corrective action + effectiveness. Whether the effectiveness criterion is met is a human judgment.

Containment— met
Disposition— met

approved

Root cause— met

filled in

Corrective action— met

filled in

Effectiveness— pending

evidence: recorded

Close is enabled only with the 5 components of the BR-22 gate — pending: Effectiveness.

In the product, checking this criterion requires the third lot's evidence to be recorded. Here the click simulates that step so you can see the gate complete.

The problem that kept coming back

The requester’s queue did not change when the decision came back. It showed up in 9 of the 12 scenarios: the flaw was in the flow, not in a screen.

See it in the product
Approve as Coordinator and watch the notice reach the queue of whoever asked for the decision.
Skip the demo

NC-000567, as it is in the product: Engineering has already approved the disposition; the Coordinator is still missing.

Coordinator

who approves

Waiting on you outside the Task list

  • NC-000567 — Approve disposition — approval authority/quantity.

SQE

who asked

No notice yet.

In the product, each queue shows on the Actions screen of whoever is using it. Here both appear together.

  1. 114

    raw findings

  2. 75

    consolidated findings

  3. 34

    prioritized for fixing

  4. 33

    fixes applied

AI points out risks; it does not give a verdict

I had a user testing plan ready and used AI-assisted evaluation instead. That limits what I can claim:

  • No sessions with people and no interviews with professionals in the field.
  • All four evaluators used the same AI model, and one evaluated without a browser. Accessibility was formally verified in 7 flows.
  • Round 1, with 5 to 8 SQEs, was planned and will not be run, so hypotheses H1 to H6 remain open.

I would rather say what is left to validate than present what is still a hypothesis as certain.

Process and roles, in detail

Before any screen, three documents became one

Three documents contradicted each other. I reconciled 12 discrepancies into one and modeled the system from it.

  1. Understand

    Public sources and 18 work steps, 13 with a handoff.

  2. Define

    7 roles, 20 entities, 10 states, 29 transitions, 21 actions.

  3. Evaluate

    Four AI evaluators and 12 scenarios, in place of testing.

The same navigation as each role sees it
Switch the role to see what the Supplier, Logistics and Production, and the Auditor see.
Skip the demo
Plant/Site: —My requests — HidroBrake Sistemas Ltda

Here you only see the requests shared with your company.

NC-000567Type: Full 8D · Due date: 2026-09-13
accepted
NC-000920Type: Reduced 8D · Due date: 2026-09-20
waiting on your response
NC-000921Type: Full 8D · Due date: +10 days
returned with gap(s)

NC-000789 — Contamination on painted surface — fender

Execution view — Logistics/Production. Information needed to execute the Task.

Task description: Execute physical containment

Due date: 2026-09-14

Task status

Task cannot be marked "Completed": Containment action not Authorized yet and no evidence attached (BR-05).

Resets the Task status to "In progress".

Navigation (read-only)

CasesActions

Timeline / Audit

Complete, immutable, cumulative history (including when Cancelled).

Export trail

Read-only, simulated preview — no file is generated. Exporting does not change data or create a new Timeline event.

Generated by T. Alencar — Auditor.

2026-09-11 10:02
NC created by Inspector R. Nunes.
2026-09-11 10:20
SQE J. Souza takes the case.
2026-09-12 08:40
Initial physical segregation recorded (Block B, New).
2026-09-12 09:00
Advanced to Triage.
2026-09-12 09:15
Severity confirmed as Critical.

Live, with all seven roles

Open the productRead the manual (PDF)

Next case

Masterplan Urubici

Navigation by theme, not by department, and the same structure in 3 towns.

Role: Product Designer (end-to-end)

Web · Mobile · 0 to 1 · 3 towns

Masterplan Urubici portal home page, with the headline and the town's vision for the future