For your own business, or as a service you charge other businesses like yours for.
Nobody runs this lab yet. Take it, give it your hours and your prices, and it is yours.
What the customer describes, what your logs show, and what nobody has checked yet. All three kept apart.
The containment message sent without waiting for the cause: sorting, stock hold, tightened inspection, with real quantities.
GmailThe hypothesis tree, what was tested, what is ruled out and on what evidence. An untested hypothesis stays open.
Eight disciplines written, dated, in the customer's language, with the D5 and D6 evidence.
The 8D method is the format for answering customer complaints commonly required by contract in industry: automotive and the quality standards made it the default. Its structure does the work for you if you follow it: D3 protects the customer immediately, before the cause is even known; D4 establishes the root cause; D7 makes it stick by updating procedures and systems. A thirty-person supplier's problem is not knowing the method, it is having three photos, one measurement log and a running workshop when the customer expects a document. The quality suites that do this are out of budget and out of deployment reach. A lab takes your notes and produces the 8D.
Worth more in month six than in week one.
The collections belong to the lab, not to any single magik. Every magik reads them and every run adds to them, which is why this lab is worth more in month six than in week one.
They all start empty. The first run writes the first row.
It wears your name, not ours.
The same lab, under your name, your colours and your logo. Your customers never see ours.
AskMOJOOn the Pro plan, and not needed to take a lab. A fully bespoke theme exists as an upgrade, hand built rather than self-serve.
Web searchGmailAnd whatever you already use: any tool available through an API or an MCP server, connected with your own account.
A tool built for exactly your job, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This is for the jobs nothing covers, or the ones spread across three tools today.
No, and it matters not to call it that. These are your customer's requirements, written into the contract or their supplier manual. That makes them no less binding: they cost you supplier rating, not fines. The lab uses the deadlines YOU give it, it invents none.
That is exactly what D3 is for. D3 protects the customer without knowing the cause: sorting, stock hold, tightened inspection on the next batches. Answering that honestly beats an invented root cause in D4, which never survives the first question from their supplier quality team.
Common with European customers, and it is what costs a French workshop the most time: the substance is written, the translation holds up the send for two days. The lab renders the document in the language asked for, from the same shop-floor notes.
As long as you write them one at a time, yes. What makes them useful is the monthly review of open 8Ds: three different 8Ds pointing at the same machine are no longer three complaints, they are one D7 action. No single document shows that.
More complete, certainly. Deployable at your size is another question: those platforms assume a parts master, configured workflows and somebody to maintain them. This lab does not claim to replace them, it gets out the document you have to send on Thursday.
A tool built for exactly industrial suppliers of 20 to 200 people, selling to demanding customers, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This lab is for the jobs no tool covers, or the ones spread across three tools today, and it runs under your name.
Every audience is still open.
Nobody has taken a square on this idea yet. You declare your audience when you take the lab (“roofers in Brittany”, “plumbers around Paris”), and two people can start from the same idea on two different audiences without getting in each other’s way.
And it wears your name, not ours.
The bundle describes a lab that does not exist yet : the jobs it would do, and an example of each output.
Open Knowledge Format : plain markdown, re-importable into any agent. No account, no lock-in.
Your site notes become the report: what was decided, who owes what, by when. Written before the next meeting.
GmailThe quotes that went silent get a follow-up that sounds like you wrote it. Because you read it before it goes.
Gmail
Google SheetsYour grant file is checked before you send it, so it does not come back three weeks later because one paper is missing.
Web search| Source | Finding | Checked? |
|---|---|---|
| Customer | Excess play on the shaft, 14 parts out of 200 | No, photo only |
| Shop inspection sheet | Dimension at 12.04 mm, tolerance 12.00 +/- 0.03 | Yes, log of 04/08 |
| Operator | Tool change on 04/08 mid-run | Yes, machine journal |
| Hypothesis | Different material batch | NOT TESTED |
The last row is the only one that matters for D4: until it is tested it can be neither the cause nor ruled out, and an 8D that ignores it gets sent back.
Hello, D3 answer to your complaint REC-2026-118 of 12 August on part AX-4420, inside the 48-hour window set by your supplier manual. What we have done since 9am yesterday: Stock held. 340 parts here, 1 200 in transit, stopped and labelled. No shipment since 12 August 5pm. 100 percent sorting. The 340 parts are being re-measured, dimension by dimension. 22 deviations found so far across 210 parts sorted, all on the same side of tolerance. Tightened inspection maintained on the next five batches, with a measurement record attached to every delivery. On the batch you hold: the 14 parts you report belong to batch L-260804. We ask you to hold that batch, and we will cover sorting on your site if you would rather not start it. What we do not yet know: the cause. A hypothesis around a mid-run tool change is being verified, another around the material batch has not been tested yet. D4 will reach you with the full 8D, within ten working days as agreed. I would rather tell you today what is protected than announce a cause I would have to correct next week. Quality manager
| Hypothesis | Test | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-run tool change | Measured 20 parts before / after | 0.03 mm drift after | RETAINED |
| Different material batch | Material certificates of both batches | Identical | Ruled out |
| Machine drift | 01/08 calibration re-read | Within spec | Ruled out |
| Inspection error | Double inspection on 30 parts | Consistent | Ruled out |
One cause retained and three ruled out on evidence, not intuition. That test column is the first thing the customer's supplier quality team reads.
8D report - REC-2026-118 - Part AX-4420
Issued 22 August 2026, ten working days after the complaint was received.
D1 - Team: quality manager, line 3 setter, methods engineer, purchasing supporting on material.
D2 - Problem: excess play on the shaft, 14 parts out of 200 delivered, batch L-260804. Dimension measured at 12.04 mm against a tolerance of 12.00 plus or minus 0.03.
D3 - Immediate actions: 1 540 parts held, 100 percent sorting, tightened inspection over five batches. Communicated to the customer on 13 August.
D4 - Root cause: a 0.03 mm drift after a tool change carried out mid-run with no re-setting and no trial part. Three other hypotheses ruled out on evidence.
D5 - Corrective actions chosen: re-setting and a trial part become mandatory after any tool change, whatever point of the run it happens at. First-part dimension check, recorded on the sheet.
D6 - Implementation and proof: work instruction posted at the station on 20 August, four setters trained and signed off. Verified across the next three runs: no deviation, records attached.
D7 - Prevention: the control plan only called for a trial part at run start. It is amended to cover any tool change. The four other parts produced on this line are affected and have been updated.
D8 - Closure: team recognised on 22 August. This 8D stays open in the monthly review until three consecutive runs without deviation across the five parts on that line.