Injection Molding Checklists · Controlled Review Record

Moldflow Review Checklist Before Steel Cut

Use this checklist after a Moldflow study has produced findings that require controlled follow-up before steel cut. It connects the analysis revision, affected CTQ, required engineering action, responsible owner, due date, re-run or recheck evidence and closure status in one traceable review record.

Moldflow engineering review tracking simulation findings, CTQ impact, action ownership and closure evidence before steel cut
A controlled Moldflow review links each accepted simulation finding to an owner, required action, recheck evidence and documented closure status.

What Does This Moldflow Review Checklist Control?

It converts accepted Moldflow findings into a controlled engineering closure process. Each open item should remain tied to the correct design and analysis baseline, identify the affected CTQ or feature, show the agreed action and owner, and stay visible until the required re-run, engineering recheck or physical verification evidence has been reviewed.

1 · Lock Record CAD revision, resin, analysis assumptions and report revision
2 · Record Define the Moldflow finding and affected CTQ or product feature
3 · Assign Record the agreed engineering action, responsible owner and due date
4 · Verify Attach the required re-run, recheck or physical verification evidence
5 · Close Accept, revise, re-run or transfer the item with documented status
Scope Boundary Moldflow finding closure only—not complete mold-release approval
Page boundary: this checklist does not re-teach Fill, Pack, Cool or Warp interpretation and does not replace the complete before-steel-cut mold release process. Use it only after a Moldflow finding has been technically interpreted and now requires ownership, evidence, recheck and closure. Physical trial acceptance remains a separate downstream validation activity.
Report vs Controlled Review

Moldflow Report vs Moldflow Review Form: What Is the Difference?

A Moldflow report and a Moldflow review form serve different purposes. The report provides simulation evidence and engineering interpretation ; the review form controls what happens after a finding requires action.

The Report Answers “What Does the Simulation Mean?”

The technical report should preserve the model revision, material data, assumptions and the relevant simulation outputs. Its job is to explain whether the modeled behavior creates a meaningful design concern. Detailed interpretation of filling, packing, cooling or warpage remains part of the Moldflow analysis process—not the review form itself.

The Review Form Answers “What Happens Next?”

Once a finding requires action, the review form should convert it into a controlled item. The team records the affected CTQ or feature, assigns responsibility, defines the required evidence and keeps the issue open until the revised design, re-run result or other agreed verification has been reviewed.

Closing Moldflow Does Not Approve the Entire Mold

A completed review means the Moldflow-related scope has been accepted, revised or transferred for further verification. It supports the broader mold-design release process, but it does not replace approval of ejection, mold structure, steel, tolerances, cooling hardware or other tooling systems.

Responsibility Split

Keep technical interpretation and action governance separate so both records remain clear.

Question Moldflow Report / Analysis Moldflow Review Form
What was analyzed? Defines model, inputs and simulation scope References the controlled report / revision
What does the result mean? Provides engineering interpretation Records the resulting risk item
What should change? Identifies the design decision requiring action Records the agreed required action
Who closes the issue? Not the primary purpose of the report Assigns owner, due date and recheck status
Is the issue closed? May provide updated technical evidence Records re-run, recheck, transfer or closure
Section boundary: this section defines the responsibility split between technical analysis and controlled review. It does not re-explain Fill, Pack, Cool, Warp, gate freeze, pressure thresholds or defect-correction methods. The next section defines the baseline fields that must be locked before a review record is opened.
Controlled Engineering Tool · Rev.02

Download the Moldflow Review Form

Use this controlled form after a Moldflow finding has been technically interpreted and requires formal follow-up. It keeps the analysis baseline, affected CTQ, agreed action, owner, due date, verification evidence and closure status connected in one review record.

Use One Record From Finding to Closure

01

Open the Form After Technical Interpretation

Start the record when a Moldflow result has produced an engineering finding that requires an agreed action, responsibility or verification path. The form does not replace the simulation report itself.

02

Keep the Finding Tied to the Correct Revision

Record the relevant CAD, resin, gate or feed concept and Moldflow report revision. Update the same risk item when an action, owner, due date, re-run or recheck result changes.

03

Close or Transfer With Evidence

Do not close a finding from memory or meeting discussion alone. Reference the revised CAD, updated analysis, engineering recheck or physical-trial evidence that supports the final disposition.

What the Controlled Form Records

The V2 form is structured around issue ownership and engineering closure rather than repeating Fill, Pack, Cool or Warp theory.

Controlled Baseline CAD revision, resin grade, Moldflow revision and relevant analysis assumptions.
Finding + CTQ Risk ID, simulation finding and the affected CTQ, feature or functional requirement.
Agreed Action The engineering action accepted by the responsible project function—not a generic automatic fix.
Accountability Action owner, due date and the evidence required before the finding can be reconsidered.
Re-run / Recheck Updated simulation, engineering review or physical-verification evidence linked to the same risk item.
Final Status Open, Revise, Re-run Required, Accepted or Transfer for Physical Verification.
Document-control rule: when the design, resin, gate concept or simulation revision changes, update the review record and preserve the relationship to the original Risk ID. The history should show why the item was opened, revised, re-run, transferred or closed.
Scope boundary: this PDF controls Moldflow-related findings only. An accepted Moldflow item does not by itself authorize complete mold release, and transfer to physical verification does not equal T0/T1 acceptance.
Review Baseline Control

Lock the Moldflow Review Baseline Before Recording Risk

Every review item should be traceable to the exact simulation and mold design being evaluated. Before a risk is opened, record the CAD revision, commercial resin grade, machine or process assumptions, gate concept, analysis revision and relevant model assumptions .

Link Every Finding to a Controlled Revision

Do not open a review item against an undefined “latest model.” Record the design and analysis revision used for the finding so later changes can be compared against the same baseline. This prevents an outdated result from remaining open after the geometry or feed concept has already changed.

Record Assumptions That Can Change the Conclusion

The review form does not need to duplicate the complete Moldflow setup, but it should capture assumptions that materially affect the action being tracked. Resin identification, machine constraints, gate concept and model simplifications are especially important when a later re-run may use different conditions.

Reopen the Baseline When the Design Changes

If the CAD, resin, gate concept or other controlling assumption changes after the review begins, determine whether the original finding still applies. The item should remain open until the affected conclusion is either confirmed against the new baseline or marked for re-run.

Moldflow Review Baseline Fields

The form should record enough information to connect every risk item to the correct design and simulation evidence.

Baseline Field What to Record Why It Matters If It Changes
CAD Revision Part / drawing revision analyzed Locks the geometry baseline Recheck affected findings
Resin Grade Supplier, exact grade and filler level Locks the material baseline Assess whether a re-run is required
Machine / Process Assumptions Relevant modeled operating constraints Defines assumption-sensitive conclusions Recheck feasibility-sensitive items
Gate / Feed Concept Gate location, runner concept or referenced setup Connects the finding to the modeled feed path Re-run affected flow-related findings
Analysis Revision Simulation run / report ID or revision Preserves evidence traceability Reference the new run after rerun
Model Assumptions Relevant mesh or model simplifications Makes limitations visible Reassess if the limitation affects the decision
Baseline-change rule: a changed input does not automatically require every simulation result to be rerun. Re-run the result families whose engineering conclusion may be affected by the changed geometry, material, feed system, machine assumption or model scope.
Section boundary: this section only locks the baseline used by the review record. It does not explain whether the simulation result itself is technically correct. The next section defines how to convert an accepted Moldflow finding into a Risk Item, Affected CTQ and Required Action.
Risk Record Structure

How to Record a Moldflow Risk, Affected CTQ & Required Action

Once a Moldflow finding has been accepted for follow-up, the review form should convert it into a specific risk item linked to the affected CTQ or product feature and a clearly defined engineering action . The record should describe what must be resolved without re-teaching the simulation physics behind the finding.

Write the Risk as a Specific Finding, Not a Generic Defect Name

Avoid entries such as “warpage risk,” “weld line problem” or “pressure issue.” A useful record identifies where the finding occurs and why it matters to the project—for example, a predicted weld line crossing a sealing land or displacement affecting a defined assembly datum.

Link the Finding to the Requirement It Can Affect

The form should identify the relevant CTQ, drawing feature, cosmetic zone, assembly interface or other requirement. This prevents the team from treating every simulation warning as equally important and makes the review traceable to the product requirement being protected.

Define an Action That Can Be Verified Later

Required actions should describe the engineering decision that must be completed, not a vague instruction such as “optimize Moldflow.” The action may require a design revision, specialist review, updated simulation or other agreed evidence. Ownership and timing are added in the next stage of the review workflow.

Example Moldflow Risk Records

The examples below show how to write actionable records without turning the checklist into a defect-troubleshooting guide.

Risk Item Affected CTQ / Feature Required Action Required Evidence
Predicted weld line crosses the sealing land Seal surface / leak-performance requirement Re-evaluate the feed strategy or document why the current location is acceptable Updated design review and affected Moldflow result
Predicted cavity imbalance affects one cavity Cavity-to-cavity consistency requirement Review the feed-system decision affecting the imbalance Revised feed concept and rerun evidence where required
Predicted displacement affects a mounting-hole pattern Hole-position / assembly datum requirement Review the controlling design variable and proposed corrective path Updated design plus relevant warpage recheck
Thermal result indicates a localized hotspot near a CTQ Local flatness or dimensional-stability requirement Review whether the thermal concept requires revision Updated thermal design evidence and affected result
Writing rule: the review form should record the agreed engineering problem and required next action. It should not prescribe universal fixes such as “move the gate,” “add a vent” or “change cooling” unless that action has already been accepted by the responsible specialist.
Section boundary: this section defines the content of one Moldflow risk record. It does not assign ownership, target dates, re-run status or closure approval. Those accountability fields are handled in the next section.
Accountability & Closure Control

How to Assign, Re-run, Recheck & Close Moldflow Review Actions

A Moldflow risk record becomes useful only when the required action has a responsible owner, target date and defined closure evidence. The form should keep the item open until the agreed design change, re-run or recheck has been completed and the result has been reviewed.

Assign One Accountable Owner to Each Open Action

Avoid entries such as “tooling team” or “CAE to follow up” when the responsibility is unclear. Each item should have one accountable owner or clearly defined responsible function, even when several disciplines contribute to the solution. This prevents an open risk from remaining between CAE, tooling, molding and project teams with no clear closure responsibility.

Separate Action Completion From Technical Recheck

Completing a CAD change or updating a gate concept does not automatically close the finding. The review should confirm whether the changed design actually resolves the original risk. Record the new revision, the evidence reviewed and the resulting recheck conclusion before the item is considered technically complete.

Use Re-run Only When the Changed Input Can Affect the Conclusion

Not every engineering action requires a new simulation. A re-run is appropriate when the changed geometry, resin, feed system, process assumption or model scope can materially change the result supporting the open risk. Otherwise, a documented design recheck may provide sufficient evidence.

Close the Item Against Evidence, Not Against a Meeting Decision

Closure should reference the evidence that resolved the issue: updated design data, a new analysis revision, an engineering review record or another agreed verification method. The form should preserve this traceability so the reason for closure remains clear during later mold-design and project reviews.

When Moldflow findings need project-level prioritization: if several open findings must be compared with other tooling risks before release, transfer them into a formal RPN risk assessment so Severity, Occurrence and Detection, mitigation ownership, and residual-risk close-out remain controlled in one traceable register.

Action and Closure Fields

These fields turn a Moldflow finding into a controlled engineering action rather than an unresolved comment in a simulation report.

Field What to Record Control Question Closure Evidence
Owner Named person or responsible engineering function Who is accountable for the agreed action? Completed action / revision reference
Due Date Agreed target completion date When must the action be ready for review? Actual completion / review date
Re-run Required? Yes / No with reason Can the changed input alter the original conclusion? New simulation revision where required
Recheck Result Accepted / further action required Does the new evidence resolve the original risk? Reviewer note and evidence reference
Closure Record Date, evidence reference and reviewer Is the risk item traceably closed? Controlled closure entry
Re-run vs recheck: a re-run generates new simulation evidence because a controlling input has changed. A recheck is the engineering review of the revised design or new evidence against the original risk item. A re-run may require a recheck, but a recheck does not always require a new Moldflow run.
Section boundary: this section controls individual action ownership and evidence-based closure. It does not issue the final Moldflow review approval for the project. The next section defines review status and Moldflow-specific sign-off after the open items have been resolved or formally transferred.
Review Disposition & Sign-off

How Should Moldflow Review Status & Sign-off Be Recorded?

The review status should show whether a Moldflow-related risk is still open, requires design revision or re-run, has been accepted, or must be transferred for physical verification. Final sign-off should confirm the Moldflow review scope—not imply that every mold system has received final release approval.

Separate Review Status From Technical Severity

A risk classification such as high, medium or low describes the importance of the finding; the review status describes what happens next. A high-risk item may eventually become Accepted after adequate evidence is reviewed, while a lower-risk item may remain Open if the agreed action has not been completed.

Sign Off Only After Open Actions Have a Disposition

Moldflow review sign-off should occur only when each tracked item has been accepted or formally transferred with a defined verification path. The record should identify the reviewer, review date and the evidence supporting the disposition so later project reviews can reconstruct why the item was closed or transferred.

Use Project-Appropriate Reviewers, Not a Fixed Five-Role Rule

The required reviewers depend on the project and affected decision. CAE, tooling, molding, quality or project engineering may participate, but the checklist should not require every discipline to sign every item when its technical scope does not involve them.

Moldflow Review Disposition Matrix

Use the status field to show whether the review item is unresolved, being revised, re-simulated, accepted or transferred.

Status When to Use It Required Record Next State
Open Required action or evidence is incomplete Owner, action and due date Revise / Re-run / Recheck
Revise Design change is required Revision scope and responsible owner Recheck or Re-run Required
Re-run Required Changed input may alter the original conclusion New analysis revision and affected result reference Recheck
Accepted Evidence resolves the Moldflow-related risk Reviewer, date and closure evidence Closed within Moldflow scope
Transfer for Physical Verification Simulation cannot fully close the requirement Open requirement and downstream verification reference Trial / physical verification
Moldflow sign-off ≠ complete mold approval. Accepted Moldflow review status confirms that simulation-related findings have been resolved or formally transferred. Complete mold release still depends on the other applicable design, tooling, quality and project approval requirements.
Section boundary: this section defines review disposition and Moldflow-specific sign-off. It does not explain how physical mold trials should be performed. The next section covers how unresolved simulation risks are transferred into mold trial or other physical verification.
Physical Verification Handoff

How Should Open Moldflow Risks Be Transferred to Mold Trial?

Some Moldflow-related risks cannot be fully closed by simulation alone. When physical verification is required, the review record should transfer the original risk, affected CTQ, verification question, required evidence and downstream record reference without losing the connection to the original Moldflow finding.

Transfer Only What Simulation Cannot Fully Close

Use physical verification when the project requires evidence that is better obtained from the actual molded part, mold or process. The review form should preserve the original Moldflow risk and state why simulation alone is not sufficient for final disposition.

Convert the Open Risk Into a Measurable Trial Question

Avoid vague handoffs such as “check warpage at T1” or “watch weld line.” Define the affected feature and the evidence needed to judge it. The trial team should know exactly what observation or measurement must return to the review record.

Bring the Result Back to the Original Review Item

A transferred item is not closed when it leaves the Moldflow review. Record the downstream trial reference and return the verification result to the original risk item so it can be accepted, reopened or escalated using the same traceable review history.

Moldflow-to-Trial Transfer Fields

Keep the handoff concise and traceable so trial evidence can be returned to the correct Moldflow review item.

Transfer Field What to Record Purpose Return to Review
Risk Reference Original risk ID and report revision Preserves traceability Link result back to same item
Affected CTQ / Feature Requirement requiring physical confirmation Defines verification scope Compare evidence to requirement
Verification Question Specific question the trial must answer Prevents vague trial follow-up Record pass / further action
Evidence Required Measurement, inspection or observation Defines what constitutes usable evidence Attach or reference result
Trial Record Reference Trial report, issue log or verification record ID Connects simulation review to physical evidence Close, reopen or escalate
Physical verification handoff: use the T0, T1, T2 Mold Trial Guide for the broader mold-trial workflow. This page only defines what Moldflow-related information must be transferred and returned.
Section boundary: this section does not teach T0/T1/T2 execution, defect correction, venting design, gate changes or warpage troubleshooting. It controls the handoff of unresolved Moldflow review items into physical verification and the return of that evidence to the original review record.
Moldflow Review Checklist FAQ

Common Questions About Using a Moldflow Review Checklist

These questions focus on action ownership, re-runs, physical verification and sign-off rather than re-explaining how Moldflow simulation itself works.

Q1

What should be recorded in a Moldflow review checklist?

Record the controlled design and analysis baseline, the Moldflow risk item, affected CTQ or feature, required action, owner, due date, re-run or recheck status, closure evidence and final review disposition.

Q2

Who should own a Moldflow review action?

Each open action should have one clearly accountable person or engineering function. Other disciplines may support the work, but the review record should make responsibility for completing and returning the required evidence unambiguous.

Q3

When should a Moldflow study be re-run?

Re-run the affected analysis when a changed geometry, resin, gate or feed concept, process assumption or model scope can materially change the engineering conclusion supporting the open risk. Not every design change requires a full new simulation.

Q4

How should an open Moldflow risk be transferred to mold trial?

Transfer the original risk reference, affected CTQ, verification question, required physical evidence and downstream trial-record reference. The result should return to the original review item so it can be accepted, reopened or escalated.

Q5

When is the Moldflow review ready for sign-off?

Sign-off is appropriate when every tracked Moldflow item has been accepted or formally transferred with a defined verification path, and the record includes the reviewer, date and supporting evidence. Moldflow sign-off does not replace complete mold-release approval.

Engineering Review Support

Need Help Closing Moldflow Review Actions Before Steel Cut?

Send the current design revision and Moldflow report together with the open engineering questions. SPI can review whether the risk record, required action, ownership, re-run or recheck path and closure evidence are sufficiently defined before the Moldflow review scope is signed off or transferred.

What to Send

Current CAD / drawing revision, Moldflow report or analysis revision, exact resin grade and the open review items you need to resolve.

Request a Moldflow Engineering Review