When a buyer suspects that a blade or cutting part does not meet the approved specification, the result depends on the evidence preserved and the technical cause established. This article explains the working sequence: written notice, evidence preservation, specification review, root-cause analysis and a written outcome. The applicable order confirmation and Terms of Sale remain controlling.
Why a documented claim procedure matters
A product claim cannot be assessed from the fact that a blade chipped, wore faster than expected or caused a machine stop. The investigation must identify the applicable specification, the alleged deviation, the operating conditions and the causal connection between them.
The five steps below describe how that information is collected and reviewed. They do not predetermine whether a product is nonconforming or who is responsible for a loss.
The five steps
1. Receive and acknowledge
Notify us in writing and identify the original order, product and affected batch. Describe the suspected nonconformity, when it was discovered and whether continued use could increase damage or prejudice the investigation. We then confirm what additional information or physical evidence is needed.
2. Preserve the evidence
Stop using the affected product where continued operation may increase the damage or compromise the investigation. Quarantine the affected batch and preserve the product, fragments, relevant processed material, packaging, batch identification, machine settings, installation and maintenance records, and photographs taken when the issue was discovered.
Do not regrind, destructively clean, modify or dispose of the relevant evidence before Steellogy, its insurer or an appointed expert has had a reasonable opportunity to participate in an inspection. Immediate action required by law or necessary to protect life or health is not restricted.
3. Review the specification and operating data
The review starts with the buyer-approved drawing, order confirmation and any agreed acceptance criteria. The physical part and preserved evidence are then compared with the material being cut, machine settings, installation, maintenance and service conditions disclosed for the order.
If material documentation or dimensional or hardness records formed part of the confirmed order scope, those records can also be included in the review. Their availability is not assumed for every delivery; it must have been agreed in the quotation.
4. Analyse the root cause
Possible causes include:
A deviation from the approved specification that existed when risk passed.
A specification that did not reflect the actual duty, for example after the processed material or operating conditions changed.
Installation, alignment, machine-setting, maintenance, handling or storage conditions affecting the product after delivery.
Normal wear, contamination or foreign objects, including tramp metal, where these explain the observed failure mode.
The occurrence of breakage, wear, reduced service life or a machine stop does not by itself establish nonconformity or causation. Where the evidence does not support a reliable conclusion, the investigation should say so.
5. Issue the written outcome
The written outcome records the evidence reviewed, the technical finding and any next step. Inspection, an RMA, technical assistance or preparation of an 8D report does not by itself admit defect, causation or liability.
Where the buyer proves material nonconformity under the applicable Terms of Sale, the contractual remedy is selected by Steellogy from repair, replacement or credit of the net price paid for the affected product. Any corrective action or specification change is defined from the established cause, not assumed at the start of the claim.
What we ask of you when you raise a complaint
Send the information and evidence available at the time of discovery:
Order, product and batch identification. Include the order confirmation, delivery note, product identification and affected quantity.
The product and fragments. Preserve the failed part, any fragments, packaging and relevant processed material.
A factual description of the event. State the installation date, service time, material being processed, machine settings and what changed immediately before the issue.
Photographs and records. Include the cutting edge, mounting area, wear or fracture surface, machine display, settings, maintenance and installation records where relevant.
The more complete the evidence, the more reliably the alleged deviation and cause can be assessed. If relevant evidence is altered or discarded, a reliable root-cause analysis may no longer be possible.
Timing and contractual conditions
The notice periods, contractual remedy, exclusions and liability limits are set out in the applicable order confirmation and Terms of Sale. This article explains the technical workflow and does not replace those documents.
Evidence to establish before a problem occurs
The most useful claim evidence is created before a problem occurs: an approved drawing, a clear order confirmation, identified operating conditions and acceptance criteria agreed before manufacture. Those records allow the delivered part and the actual duty to be compared without reconstructing the specification after the event.
For a new quotation, send the drawing, part number with revision and, where available, a worn sample. Include the machine model, processed material, service conditions and any required acceptance or documentation scope.
For more on how the system works, see: inside our production floor, steel grades and where we use them, and how we inspect a finished blade.