Common IMDS Rejection Reasons and How to Avoid Them
Direct answer: IMDS submissions usually come back for revision because of data issues: incorrect or incomplete material data, wrong component/material structure, missing substance information, weight or percentage errors, incorrect classification, or unmet customer/OEM-specific requirements. Most are preventable with a structured review before submission.
Important Note
IMDS system checks can identify areas requiring further investigation; customer/OEM acceptance may also depend on specific requirements. A check message is a signal to review the data — not automatically a final rejection by the system.
The 12 Most Common Reasons
1. Incorrect or incomplete material data
Symptom: materials missing from the tree, composition not matching supply, classification wrong.
Fix: base every material on real supply data and drawing notes.
Prevention: keep raw-material supplier data current for each part family.
2. Incorrect component/material structure
Symptom: assembly levels or material layers (e.g. plating) missing or misplaced.
Fix: rebuild the tree from the actual part: component → material → substance.
Prevention: compare the MDS tree against the drawing and the process route.
3. Missing required substance information
Symptom: substances absent from a material, or declared substances not listed.
Fix: complete substance coverage from supplier data and applicable lists.
Prevention: include substance checks in the pre-submission review.
4. Incorrect weight or percentage data
Symptom: component weight inconsistent with geometry, or percentages that do not sum correctly.
Fix: verify weight against the part and percentages against the material data.
Prevention: weigh real parts at sample stage and record the values.
5. Incorrect classification
Symptom: material or substance classified in the wrong category.
Fix: correct the classification using the system rules and customer expectations.
Prevention: check classification during internal review with a second reviewer.
6. Outdated or incorrect customer requirements
Symptom: data prepared to an older revision of the customer's instructions.
Fix: re-confirm requirements against the current customer specification.
Prevention: record the requirement revision used for each submission.
7. Missing OEM-specific information
Symptom: required OEM-specific fields or notes absent.
Fix: complete the OEM-specific section per customer instructions.
Prevention: include OEM-specific fields in the submission checklist.
8. Inconsistent part number/revision
Symptom: drawing, MDS and customer records disagree on number or revision.
Fix: align all records to the released drawing.
Prevention: check identity fields against the drawing at every revision.
9. Data not matching the actual product/material
Symptom: MDS describes a similar but different part or material condition.
Fix: rework the MDS for the actual part.
Prevention: tie each MDS to a specific part number and material spec.
10. Failure to address customer feedback
Symptom: feedback from a previous submission not incorporated.
Fix: log each feedback item, correct the data and confirm with the customer.
Prevention: treat customer feedback as a controlled change, not a chat message.
11. Incorrect use of references
Symptom: references point to unavailable or inapplicable data.
Fix: reference the actual source data used.
Prevention: document source per value during collection.
12. Unresolved system warnings/checks
Symptom: check messages left without investigation.
Fix: investigate each check before submission.
Prevention: run system checks and document the outcome in the review record.
Root Causes Behind the Symptoms
| Root cause | Typical visible result | Systemic fix |
|---|---|---|
| No internal review step | Errors reach the customer | Second reviewer before submission |
| Material data not tied to supply | Composition mismatches | Supplier data files per part family |
| Plating/coating layers missed | Incomplete material tree | Process-aware data preparation |
| Revision drift | Part number/revision mismatches | Revision-controlled records |
| Requirements not recorded | Outdated customer instructions used | Requirement revision logged per program |
How to Avoid Rejections Systematically
- Confirm customer/OEM requirements and record their revision
- Prepare the MDS from the real part and process (including plating layers)
- Verify weights on real samples
- Keep substance data traceable to raw-material suppliers
- Run an internal technical review with a second reviewer
- Investigate every system check before submission
- Log customer feedback and manage it as a controlled revision
The full sequence is available as the 15-step IMDS compliance checklist, and the supplier-side workflow that prevents these problems is explained in Balford's IMDS process. For the fundamentals behind the structure — component, material and substance — see what is IMDS; for where IMDS sits relative to REACH and RoHS, see the comparison guide.
Key Takeaways
- Most revision requests trace to data structure, substance coverage, weights or requirements
- System checks are investigation signals, not automatic rejections
- Plated and coated parts fail most often because layers are missing
- Internal review before submission prevents most rework
- Customer feedback handled as controlled change keeps revisions safe
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was my IMDS submission rejected?
Revision requests usually come from incorrect structure, incomplete material or substance data, weight or percentage errors, or unmet customer-specific requirements.
Does IMDS reject submissions automatically?
IMDS system checks can identify areas requiring further investigation; customer/OEM acceptance may also depend on specific requirements. Treat check messages as review signals.
What is the most common IMDS error?
In practice, incorrect or incomplete material structure — especially missing plating/coating layers and substance information — is a frequent cause of revision requests.
How do I fix a rejected IMDS submission?
Review the customer's feedback and the data against the real part: structure, substances, weights, classification and requirements; correct, re-review internally and resubmit.
Can a supplier prevent IMDS rejections?
Most causes are preventable with a structured pre-submission checklist, traceable supplier data and an internal second review.
Sources
- IMDS public pages — International Material Data System
- Customer/OEM supplier requirements applicable to the program