Two European recalls published on 28 August 2026 illustrate this clearly. One concerns the attachment of a seat belt in the Audi Q3, while the other relates to a steering component used in Iveco S-WAY, X-WAY and T-WAY trucks.

Technically, the two issues are very different.

From a quality perspective, however, they highlight the same principle:

there is no such thing as an insignificant deviation in automotive manufacturing.

Audi Q3: When a Fastening Issue Becomes a Safety Risk

According to EU Safety Gate alert SR/02351/26, the seat belt in certain Audi Q3 vehicles may not be correctly attached to the vehicle body.

As a result, the belt may not provide adequate restraint in the event of an accident, increasing the risk of injury. The issue was classified as a serious risk under the European Safety Gate system.

The case highlights an important point.

Automotive quality is not only about whether an individual component meets its specification.

A conforming component can still become a safety risk if the assembly process itself is not performed correctly.

Iveco: When the Deviation Is Not Necessarily Visible

EU Safety Gate alert SR/02346/26 concerns Iveco S-WAY, X-WAY and T-WAY MY24 vehicles.

According to the alert, ball joints on the steering rods may have insufficient hardness, potentially resulting in breakage. This could affect vehicle handling and increase the risk of an accident.

From a quality perspective, this type of issue is particularly interesting because it may not be detectable through basic visual inspection.

A component can look completely acceptable while one of its critical material properties falls outside specification.

Two Different Defects – The Same Question

One case involves an assembly-related issue.

The other concerns a technical property of a component.

Yet the core question for quality assurance is the same:

At what point could the deviation have been identified and contained as early as possible?

Modern vehicles consist of thousands of parts, numerous manufacturing operations and highly complex supplier networks.

For this reason, automotive quality cannot rely on a single inspection point.

1. Incoming Inspection – The First Line of Defence

Incoming inspection can help identify non-conforming components before they enter the production process.

For critical components, inspection may include:

  • dimensional requirements,
  • geometric characteristics,
  • material properties,
  • surface requirements,
  • documentation and traceability data,
  • and defined functional parameters.

The earlier a problem is identified, the lower the risk of it progressing further through the manufacturing process.

2. In-Process Inspection – A Good Part Can Still Be Assembled Incorrectly

The Audi Q3 case demonstrates why controlling the manufacturing process itself is equally important.

A component that fully meets specification can still result in a non-conforming finished product if it is assembled incorrectly.

For critical operations, the relevant question is therefore not only:

“Is the component installed?”

but also:

“Has it been installed correctly?”

Standardised work instructions, torque monitoring, poka-yoke solutions, machine vision, automated process monitoring and human inspection can all form part of the control strategy.

The objective should not simply be to create more inspection points.

The objective is to apply the right control to the right risk.

3. Final Inspection – One of the Last Lines of Defence

Final inspection provides another opportunity to detect potential defects before a product leaves the production facility.

However, the Iveco case highlights another important limitation: not every defect is visible.

A material-property deviation or an internal structural issue may not be identifiable through conventional visual inspection.

The inspection method must therefore always be aligned with the specific risk.

4. Containment – When the Problem Must Be Stopped Quickly

Once a quality deviation has been identified, one of the first questions is:

How large could the affected population be?

Quality teams may need to determine:

  • which production lots could be affected,
  • which parts remain inside the facility,
  • what has already entered the next process,
  • which products have already been shipped,
  • and how additional potentially non-conforming products can be prevented from moving forward.

This is where effective containment becomes critical.

100% sorting, additional inspection points, clear physical separation of OK and NOK products, and reliable traceability can all help prevent the issue from spreading further.

The Later a Defect Is Found, the Greater Its Potential Impact

The same deviation can have completely different consequences depending on where it is detected.

Supplier → incoming inspection → production → final inspection → shipment → customer → recall

The further a non-conforming product travels through this chain, the more complex and costly the response can become.

Early detection may mean isolating a supplier lot.

Late detection may require:

  • 100% sorting,
  • rework,
  • production disruption,
  • additional logistics,
  • customer complaint handling,
  • or even a product recall.

Quality Is Not an Inspection Point – It Is a System

The Audi and Iveco recalls represent two very different types of quality issue.

It would not be appropriate to claim that one specific inspection method could necessarily have prevented either case.

The broader lesson, however, is clear:

effective automotive quality assurance consists of multiple, connected lines of defence.

Incoming inspection → in-process inspection → final inspection → traceability → containment.

Through quality inspection, sorting and rework services, Miell Quality supports automotive partners in identifying and managing deviations as early and effectively as possible.

Because one of the most important questions in quality assurance is not only:

Will we detect the defect?

It is also:

When will we detect it?

Sources

European Commission – EU Safety Gate, Audi Q3, alert SR/02351/26.

European Commission – EU Safety Gate, Iveco S-WAY / X-WAY / T-WAY MY24, alert SR/02346/26.