Injection mold trial samples and CTQ evidence reviewed for T0 T1 and T2 stage decisions — Stage decisions should be based on traceable trial evidence and the engineering objective defined for the current mold-trial stage.

Mold Trial Stage Decision Guide

T0 vs T1 vs T2 Mold Trial Approval Matrix: What Each Stage Can Support

T0, T1 and T2 should not be treated as interchangeable approval points. Each stage answers a different engineering question and supports a different level of decision. This matrix explains what each stage can support, what it cannot yet prove and what evidence should exist before moving forward.

What can this stage support? Define the engineering decision that can reasonably be made from the current evidence.

What cannot be concluded yet? Prevent early trial results from being mistaken for final capability or mold acceptance.

What evidence is needed next? Identify the minimum evidence needed before the next planned trial or release review.

View the T0–T2 Approval Matrix →

Scope: this page focuses on stage-level decision boundaries. Detailed press-side trial execution, process-condition recording, formal validation and final mold acceptance are handled by their respective engineering workflows.

Stage Scope

What Is the Difference Between T0, T1 and T2 Mold Trials?

The stages represent increasing levels of engineering evidence. T0 establishes basic tool and first-fill feasibility, T1 develops the first meaningful part baseline, and T2 verifies corrections and whether the evidence is mature enough for the next project-defined review.

Basic Tool Function & First-Fill Feasibility

Establish whether the mounted mold can operate under controlled press conditions and whether initial resin flow, opening, release and ejection support continued sampling.

First-Part Baseline & Initial Engineering Review

Establish the first interpretable part condition, including filling behavior, visible defects, cavity differences and initial project-defined CTQ evidence where required.

Correction Verification & Next-Stage Readiness

Verify whether agreed tooling or process corrections produced the intended result and whether the updated evidence supports the next planned project review.

Stage naming is not universal: customers and toolmakers may define T0, T1, T2, T3 or Pilot differently. The labels on this page describe an SPI working approval sequence. Project-specific stage definitions, evidence requirements and decision authority should follow the agreed trial plan.

Execution boundary: this page explains stage-level decisions rather than detailed press-side trial procedures. For the actual checks performed after the mold is mounted, use the Injection Mold Trial Checklist .

Core Stage Decision Matrix

T0 vs T1 vs T2 Mold Trial Approval Matrix

Use this matrix to separate stage-level engineering decisions from final mold acceptance. A supported decision means the available evidence is sufficient for the next planned step; it does not mean the tool is fully validated or released for production.

Stage	Main Objective	Stage Decision Supported	Do Not Conclude Yet	Minimum Evidence	Next Action
T0	Basic tool function & first-fill feasibility	Supports: continue controlled sampling when dynamic tool function, first resin flow and part release are usable.	Not yet: final dimensions, cosmetics, assembly approval or process capability.	Tool-function observations, first-fill evidence, release/ejection status and any blocking issue.	Correct the blocker or proceed to T1.
T1	First-part baseline & initial engineering review	Supports: define correction direction and the evidence that must be verified next.	Not yet: Cpk, production-level cosmetic or texture approval, production release or final acceptance.	Cavity-tagged samples, fill/defect baseline and initial CTQ or FAI evidence where required.	Correct the identified condition and proceed to T2 verification.
T2	Correction verification & next-stage readiness	Supports: confirm whether agreed corrections worked and whether updated evidence supports the next project review.	Not yet: long-run capability, PPAP or final mold acceptance unless those requirements are separately demonstrated.	Updated CTQ or FAI evidence where required, samples from a defined condition and critical-issue status.	Retry affected checks or continue to Pilot, validation or another agreed downstream review.

Evidence ownership: this matrix identifies the type of evidence needed for a stage decision. Detailed machine settings, actual molding conditions and change history belong in the trial record and condition sheet .

Approval boundary: a T0, T1 or T2 decision is a stage gate. It should not be interpreted as final mold acceptance, formal process validation or production capability approval.

T0 Stage Decision

What Can a T0 Mold Trial Actually Support?

T0 is an early engineering gate. Its purpose is to determine whether the mounted tool can function under controlled press conditions and whether basic mold behavior and first-fill evidence are sufficient to continue development.

T0 Can Support

Continue Controlled Sampling

T0 can support moving forward when mold movement, first resin flow, opening, ejection and part release are usable enough for controlled follow-on sampling.

T0 Cannot Support

Final Part or Process Approval

T0 should not be used to conclude final dimensional compliance, cosmetic approval, assembly readiness, process capability or final mold acceptance.

Minimum Evidence

Basic Tool and First-Fill Evidence

Retain the relevant tool-function observations, first-fill evidence, release or ejection status and any blocking condition that affects whether meaningful sampling can continue.

Typical next action: correct any blocking T0 condition and repeat the affected check, or proceed to T1 when the evidence supports a controlled first-part evaluation.

T0 boundary: this section defines the decision supported by T0 evidence. Detailed machine setup, dry-cycle checks, short-shot execution and process recording belong to the relevant trial-execution and record-control workflows.

T1 Stage Decision

What Can a T1 Mold Trial Actually Support?

T1 establishes the first engineering baseline from interpretable molded parts. Its main value is to show which filling, visible, dimensional or cavity-specific conditions require correction and what should be verified next.

T1 Can Support

Define the Correction Direction

T1 can support decisions on which observed mold or part conditions need correction and which features should be rechecked during the next controlled trial.

T1 Cannot Support

Final Production Approval

T1 should not be treated as proof of long-run capability, final texture approval, production readiness, PPAP completion or final mold acceptance.

Minimum Evidence

Traceable First-Part Baseline

Use cavity-identified samples, the observed fill and defect baseline, and project-defined initial CTQ or dimensional evidence where required to support the next engineering decision.

Typical next action: define the required tooling or controlled process correction, preserve the T1 baseline and move to T2 only when the affected condition can be verified against that baseline.

T1 boundary: this section defines what T1 evidence can support. Detailed short-shot execution, process settings, trial-record fields and defect root-cause analysis belong to their respective specialist workflows.

T2 Stage Decision

What Can a T2 Mold Trial Actually Support?

T2 should verify whether the corrections identified from earlier trials produced the intended result. The key decision is whether updated part, cavity and CTQ evidence is strong enough to close the correction loop or move to the next project-defined review.

T2 Can Support

Confirm Correction Effectiveness

T2 can support closing a correction when the affected mold or part condition shows the intended improvement under a defined and traceable trial condition.

T2 Cannot Support

Automatic Production Release

T2 should not automatically be treated as proof of long-run process capability, PPAP completion, production validation or final mold acceptance.

Minimum Evidence

Updated Verification Evidence

Use updated cavity-identified samples, relevant CTQ or dimensional results, the verified correction status and evidence from a defined trial condition.

Typical next action: if the correction is not verified, keep the issue open and repeat the affected check. Significant corrective actions should remain traceable in the Mold Trial Issue Tracking Sheet . If the evidence is sufficient, continue to the agreed downstream review.

T2 boundary: this section defines correction verification and next-stage readiness. Detailed machine settings, process-window development, capability studies and formal production validation belong to their respective downstream workflows.

Evidence Release Gate

When Is Mold Trial Evidence Not Sufficient for Stage Release?

A stage should not advance simply because acceptable-looking parts were produced. The evidence must be traceable, comparable and relevant to the current stage objective before it can support the next engineering decision.

Uncontrolled Input

Resin, revision, cavity, machine condition or another critical input is different from the condition the trial decision is intended to represent.

Missing Traceability

Samples or measurements cannot be linked reliably to the cavity, revision, trial stage or condition under which they were produced.

Incomparable Evidence

Conditions changed enough that the current sample set cannot be compared meaningfully with the baseline used for the stage decision.

Critical Issue Still Open

A mold, part or evidence-related finding remains unresolved and materially affects the reliability of the proposed next-stage decision.

Release rule: if the missing or unreliable evidence affects the current stage objective, keep the decision open. Restore control or traceability, regenerate the affected evidence and reassess the stage before moving forward.

Scope boundary: this section evaluates whether evidence is sufficient for a stage decision. It does not replace detailed inspection methods, defect troubleshooting, corrective-action tracking or formal validation.

After T2

What Happens After T2?

A successful T2 review closes or advances the correction loop, but it does not automatically release the mold for production. The next step depends on the project-specific validation and acceptance requirements.

Downstream Validation

Pilot, Capability or Formal Validation

Projects may require additional stable-run, capability, FAI, PPAP or other validation evidence before production release. The required scope should follow the agreed Injection Mold Validation Guide .

Final Tool Decision

Mold Acceptance & Handover

Final approval should follow the project-defined dimensional, functional, documentation and open-item requirements described in the Injection Mold Acceptance Criteria .

After-T2 boundary: if required T2 evidence is still incomplete, repeat or close the affected engineering issue first. Pilot duration, capability criteria, PPAP scope and final acceptance authority are project-specific downstream decisions.

Stage Approval FAQ

T0, T1 and T2 Mold Trial Approval Questions

These questions clarify what each mold-trial stage can reasonably support and where additional evidence is still required before validation, production release or final mold acceptance.

What does passing T0 actually mean?

Passing T0 means the available evidence supports continued controlled sampling. Basic mold movement, first resin flow, opening, ejection and release should be usable enough for the next planned trial activity. It does not mean dimensions, cosmetics, assembly fit or production capability are finally approved.

Can T1 samples be used for final dimensional approval?

T1 samples can establish an initial dimensional or CTQ baseline when produced and measured under a traceable condition. However, T1 evidence alone should not automatically be treated as final dimensional approval if corrections, repeatability checks, validation or other project-defined requirements remain open.

What should T2 prove after mold corrections?

T2 should show whether the agreed tooling or controlled process correction produced the intended result. The affected samples, CTQ evidence and issue status should be comparable with the earlier baseline so the team can decide whether to close the correction, retry it or move downstream.

Are T0, T1 and T2 stage definitions universal?

No. Trial-stage terminology varies by customer, toolmaker and project. The T0–T2 sequence on this page represents an SPI working approval model. The project trial plan should define the actual stage objectives, required evidence and decision authority before those labels are used for release decisions.

Does passing T2 mean the mold is approved for production?

No. A successful T2 review may support moving to Pilot, validation or another agreed review, but it does not automatically demonstrate long-run capability, PPAP completion or final mold acceptance. Those conclusions require the separate evidence defined by the applicable project and customer requirements.

What evidence should support a next-stage release decision?

Evidence should match the objective of the current stage and remain traceable to the relevant mold revision, cavity, sample and trial condition. Required evidence may include tool-function findings, cavity-identified samples, fill or defect observations, CTQ or FAI results and the status of critical open issues.

Mold Trial Engineering Review

Need a Second Review Before the Next Mold Trial Stage?

Send the current trial stage, drawing revision, available sample or CTQ evidence, and any unresolved finding. SPI can review whether the evidence supports the proposed next engineering step and identify what still needs clarification.

What to Send

Current T0, T1 or T2 stage, drawing revision, available trial evidence and the main open issue or decision.

What We Review

Stage objective, evidence sufficiency, correction status and the technical questions that should be resolved before moving forward.

Request a Mold Trial Stage Review →

Engineering review supports trial planning and evidence assessment; final release authority remains subject to the applicable project and customer requirements.