FAT and SAT Planning for Packaging Automation Projects

Agree what will be tested at the supplier’s factory, what must wait for the installed site, and what evidence will close each requirement before the equipment order. A FAT can demonstrate an agreed configuration under factory conditions. A SAT addresses the installed configuration and the site conditions included in the contract. Neither label by itself defines a pass result.

The matrix below is an editorial starting point for a packaging-automation project. Set the applicable requirements with the supplier, integrator and site team; do not treat the proposed rows as universal acceptance criteria.

Freeze the basis of the test

Record the requirement revision, drawings, software and recipe versions, product samples, pallet types and connected equipment. State which parts of the line are real and which are simulated. An emulated downstream-ready signal may support a factory control check, but it leaves the physical handover to the installed downstream machine untested.

IEC 62381:2024 describes factory and site acceptance and integration testing against an applicable specification. Its published scope concerns automation systems in the process industry and includes adapting plans to the project. We use that distinction as background; the table here is our discussion template, not a reproduction of its checklists or a claim of compliance.

Allocate tests to the place that can prove them

Item to discuss	Possible factory evidence	Site evidence or open point
Product handling	Agreed samples run with the nominated tooling and recipes	Confirm actual incoming variation and connected-line presentation
Output	Good-output count with time basis, interruptions and configuration recorded	Confirm the agreed integrated operating case with actual supply and removal
Pallet load	Pattern, orientation, height and damage observations against agreed criteria	Confirm pallet range and the nominated transfer to downstream handling
Changeover	Agreed format changes with tasks and time boundary recorded	Confirm site roles, access, recipe control and required materials
Interfaces	Signal list, simulated conditions and witnessed responses	Actual upstream/downstream, identification and data connections
Abnormal conditions	Agreed, controlled test cases designed by the responsible engineers	Site-specific cases and documented recovery responsibility
Safety-related verification	Reports and outstanding validation items from the responsible integrator	Verification appropriate to the final installed application
Documentation and training	Draft manuals, drawings, software/configuration records and training plan	Final revisions, delivered training, access and handover records

A successful production run is not a substitute for safety validation. ISO 10218-2:2025 addresses industrial robot applications and cells, including integration. Have the responsible specialists define the validation work for the actual application.

Write an observable pass statement

Give every requirement an identifier, test method, measured quantity, acceptance limit, witness and evidence location. Agree how a failed sample, planned interruption or retest affects the result. Leave an unknown limit open for approval rather than copying a number from another installation.

An assumed example illustrates the counting issue: 240 accepted packs observed over 12 elapsed minutes equal 20 good packs per elapsed minute. If someone excludes two minutes of pallet exchange, the same count becomes 24 per counted running minute. Both calculations are arithmetically valid; they answer different questions. Agree the denominator before the test, and report both if both matter. These figures are not a capacity claim or a recommended acceptance threshold.

For load quality, specify what will be inspected and against which drawing or agreed sample. For changeover, define the starting and ending conditions. For data exchange, retain the relevant records and identify the receiving system. “Works correctly” leaves each of those decisions open.

Close deviations without losing their history

Use an issue log with the requirement ID, observation, evidence, responsible owner, action, due date and retest result. Agree which unresolved items prevent shipment, which prevent site acceptance and which can remain under an explicitly approved action plan. The contract and project risk assessment determine those decisions.

If the configuration changes after a test, identify the affected results and decide what must be repeated. Keep the original results rather than replacing them with a clean table. A signed cover sheet should point to the actual reports, software revisions and unresolved items.

Prepare for handover

Before the review, gather the RFQ revision, product and pallet list, interface schedule, test matrix, trial materials and witness availability. Allocate responsibility for providing samples and arranging the site operating window. Use the RFQ worksheet to capture those inputs and the maintenance planning guide to define what the receiving team needs.

Keep commissioning costs and retest responsibilities in the project budget. The buying-guides hub links the planning documents used before and after acceptance.