Direct answer: specify the exact wire and terminal, obtain the applicable strip-length and conductor-condition requirements, and agree how the supplier will inspect the stripped end before the crimp hides it. A report showing a finished cable passed continuity does not establish that its conductor was undamaged during stripping. Suspect strands need a documented disposition against the governing specification, not an improvised allowable-damage percentage.
For a buyer, the useful question is not simply whether a supplier owns an automatic wire stripper. It is whether the proposed process can show what wire was prepared, which requirements governed it, how the exposed conductor was inspected, and what happened when that inspection failed. Those records make quotations comparable and help contain an actual issue without automatically rejecting unrelated production.
This guide covers procurement of stripped stranded-wire ends for crimped cable assemblies. It does not prescribe machine settings, electrical sizing or a universal workmanship class. Coaxial shields, foil screens, enamelled winding wire and solder termination can require different preparation rules. Give those constructions their own approved instructions rather than extending a crimped-wire checklist by analogy.
Separate wire preparation from finished-crimp acceptance
A stripped end has characteristics that may become difficult to examine after termination: the condition of individual strands, the insulation cut edge and the relationship between the exposed conductor and the intended terminal. Inspecting only the completed crimp leaves a gap unless the acceptance plan explicitly explains how those earlier characteristics are controlled.
The Molex Industrial Crimp Quality Handbook, section 6.1 identifies cut or nicked strands during wire preparation and directs cutting and re-stripping nicked wire before crimping. This is manufacturer guidance in a general handbook; it does not give permission to shorten an assembly below its drawing requirement or override the selected terminal's current application specification.
Treat preparation, termination and final assembly as separate evidence stages. A supplier should be able to connect them by job or batch identity. The stages need not generate three elaborate certificates, but their records should answer three distinct questions: was the wire end acceptable, was it terminated correctly, and does the delivered assembly meet its released requirements?
For the second stage, use the crimp tooling, pull-test and cross-section guide. Its finished-joint checks complement the pre-crimp evidence discussed here. Neither set of checks should be described as a substitute for the other without an approved, application-specific basis.
Identify the wire before selecting an inspection rule
Put the manufacturer's wire part number, conductor size, strand construction, conductor finish and insulation specification in the inquiry. If the design allows alternatives, identify the permitted differences and their approval route. “Same gauge” does not tell a bidder whether the proposed material has the same strand construction or insulation dimensions as the reference wire.
Also identify the terminal part number and the applicable tooling instructions. An acceptable preparation has to serve the intended termination. The inspection record should therefore name a wire-terminal combination, rather than presenting a generic photograph of a neatly stripped conductor as evidence for every item in the quotation.
For example, TE's LP6.2 application specification, section 3.3 connects wire selection and strip dimensions to identified contacts, and warns against conductor nicks, scrapes and cuts. Its later wire-location requirements address placement in that particular crimp. This supports asking for a matched requirement package; LP6.2 dimensions are not general settings for other terminals.
Where a subcontractor receives customer-supplied wire, make receiving identity part of the agreement. State how reel labels, partial reels and returned remnants remain associated with the job. A correct setup performed on an unidentified substitute cannot establish conformity to the intended bill of materials. Resolve missing identity before interpreting photographs or inspection averages.
Define defects in a way two inspectors can compare
Use separate fields for conductor condition, insulation condition, exposed length and handling condition. A single checkbox labelled “strip quality good” makes a later disagreement hard to resolve. The buyer should approve the governing criteria, while the supplier should identify the method and access needed to evaluate them.
The following table is a proposed review structure, not an acceptance standard. It deliberately avoids assigning universal tolerances or permissible strand losses. Those values, when applicable, must come from the agreed specification and engineering authority.
On small screens, swipe or scroll sideways to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table and use the arrow keys.
| Observation to distinguish | Evidence to request | Purchasing decision to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| A strand appears severed or absent | Wire construction reference and suitable views of the exposed end | Which requirement governs the observed condition? |
| A localized notch or scrape is visible | Location, orientation and inspection method | Is the feature assessable, or does it need further examination? |
| Strands spread outside the intended bundle | Condition before insertion and approved handling instruction | Is the end prepared for the specified terminal? |
| Insulation edge is torn or irregular | Views showing the cut edge and adjacent insulation | Is damage limited to removable scrap or present in the retained part? |
| Exposed conductor length varies | Measurement datum, unit and individual readings | Does the sample meet the applicable limits? |
| Loose fragments remain nearby | Inspection stage and containment action | Has the affected work been isolated and reviewed? |
A photograph can help communicate a feature without proving its depth or full extent. Mark uncertain observations as uncertain. If the selected method cannot distinguish an acceptable surface appearance from prohibited damage, the right response is a better examination or an engineering disposition, not a more confident caption.
Make strip length a controlled dimension
State where strip length begins and ends, the required unit, and the condition in which it is measured. Refer to the applicable drawing or tooling specification rather than copying a nominal length from a similar-looking cable. If two documents disagree, record the conflict and obtain a controlled resolution before the supplier releases production.
Molex's application-tooling FAQ directs users to the Application Tooling Specification for strip length, crimp height and pull-force information. For purchasing, that means requesting the relevant document identifier and revision, not merely a supplier's preferred nominal setting. The FAQ also identifies incorrect strip length and cut or missing strands among issues to investigate in crimping problems.
Separate the machine's setpoint from the measured result. A setpoint describes an intended process condition; an inspection reading describes a specimen under a stated measurement method. Keep both when needed for setup traceability. A screenshot of a control panel should not silently replace actual measurements of prepared ends.
Also separate strip length from overall wire length and finished assembly length. Removing a defective end and preparing it again consumes material. Whether the assembly can still meet its requirements depends on the remaining wire, termination geometry and drawing datums. The harness length and breakout guide helps organize that independent dimensional check.
Ask what the inspection can actually see
Before approving a plan, ask the supplier to show the inspection stage using a representative, identified wire. Determine whether the conductor is viewed before terminal insertion, after a partial preparation step, or only after crimping. Access and visibility should match the characteristic being accepted.
Record the observation method, illumination and magnification when they affect the decision. Do not invent a universal magnification requirement. Instead, ask whether the proposed setup can resolve the defect definitions in the agreed specification. A distant image of many wire ends may document quantity and organization while being unsuitable for judging a small conductor feature.
For dimensional readings, ask how the part is supported and how the insulation edge is identified. Avoid a method that stretches or rearranges the specimen merely to obtain an attractive measurement. Any handling needed for examination should be described so that inspectors are evaluating comparable conditions rather than different presentations of the same wire.
Preserve original evidence when a feature is disputed. Annotated copies can identify the location, but keep the underlying photograph and specimen identity available. Image sharpening, retouching or unlabelled crops can remove context. A useful record lets another reviewer understand both what is visible and what remains outside the method's capability.
Request a process-control plan without dictating machine settings
The supplier should identify the stripping equipment, relevant tooling and approved setup reference for the offered combination. Ask how changes to wire, blades, machine program or maintenance condition trigger a setup check. The goal is a reproducible process boundary, not a list of equipment brands presented as a quality guarantee.
A practical plan names the checks at startup, after relevant changes and during the run. Sampling frequency and coverage should be agreed according to the product requirements and risk. Do not assume an hourly check, a fixed number of pieces or full inspection is automatically sufficient for every application.
Include a reaction plan. It should explain who stops release, how suspect output is identified, which earlier accepted checkpoint is relevant, and who can authorize restart. The containment boundary should follow actual traceability. If the records cannot distinguish output before and after a change, acknowledge the broader uncertainty instead of claiming a precise unaffected quantity.
This control plan is separate from crimp-force monitoring. A downstream monitoring system may provide useful process information, but the RFQ must still define its validated detection scope. An undetected preparation defect cannot be dismissed simply because a different station reported no alarm.
Use a clear disposition path for suspect ends
Start by identifying and segregating the affected work. Record the observation and its requirement reference before choosing a remedy. The disposition may be rejection, an authorized cut-and-reprepare operation, additional examination, or a formal engineering decision. Do not allow an undefined “touch-up” category to bypass those choices.
For authorized re-preparation, ask whether the remaining wire can still meet the finished drawing. Record which end was shortened and repeat the relevant preparation checks. If the wire no longer meets the dimensional requirement, escalate or replace it through the approved process. Meeting the strip criterion alone does not close the overall assembly requirement.
Avoid proposals to conceal a damaged region inside a terminal or remove selected strands merely to make insertion easier. If the offered wire does not fit the selected terminal as specified, review the wire-terminal selection. The purchasing record should not turn an uncontrolled material alteration into an undocumented production convenience.
Where a supplier requests concession, require the exact affected quantity, condition, proposed use and approving authority. A concession is a particular disposition, not a new general acceptance rule. Keep it linked to the shipment so receiving staff do not unknowingly apply it to future lots with superficially similar marks.
Worked comparison: two fictional stripping-control offers
Consider an RFQ for a drawing-controlled harness with several wire types. This example compares evidence packages only; it contains no actual supplier results, damage limits, prices or approved production settings.
Bidder A offers “automatic stripping and electrical test.” Its attached image shows a machine and a group of completed assemblies. The offer does not identify which wire-terminal combinations were checked before crimping, how strip dimensions were measured, or what happens when an end has to be shortened. Its commercial scope leaves those decisions unresolved.
Bidder B lists a preparation instruction for each specified combination, proposes a first-piece record after the identified setup changes, and links suspect material to a job traveller. Its quote separately identifies the agreed inspection evidence and possible re-preparation review. This is a more complete proposal, but it still needs confirmation that the instructions and inspection method match the released requirements.
Now suppose B's demonstration record contains readings for only one wire type. Do not label the entire harness preparation approved. Ask for the missing combinations or an engineering-approved justification for the proposed coverage. Evidence completeness is judged against the actual assembly, not against the apparent professionalism of the report.
On small screens, swipe or scroll sideways to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table and use the arrow keys.
| Comparison point | Bidder A's unresolved field | Bidder B's next verification |
|---|---|---|
| Material identity | Wire types not connected to inspection | Match each offered wire to the drawing |
| Strip requirement | Nominal setup not documented | Confirm each referenced document and revision |
| Observation access | Finished assembly photographs only | Demonstrate the proposed pre-crimp method |
| Re-preparation | Shortening decision unspecified | Check remaining-length and release rules |
| Lot release | Electrical pass used as general assurance | Verify coverage and close open combinations |
If you are preparing this comparison, send the drawing, wire list and open inspection questions with your RFQ. Ask for a scope-specific response and identify which decisions still require your engineering approval.
Build a first-article record that remains useful later
A first-article package should identify the actual assembly revision, wire and terminal combinations, setup references and selected specimens. Include the preparation characteristics checked, their governing limits or criteria, the results and any dispositions. A record is useful when it can be connected to both the requirement and the material that was inspected.
For mixed-wire assemblies, use a coverage map. List each distinct combination and show which record covers it. If two combinations are grouped, explain the technical basis and approving authority. Do not assume the thickest conductor or largest terminal automatically represents every other wire preparation in the harness.
Keep failed observations in the review trail alongside their resolution. Deleting a failed setup sample after adjustment obscures why the final setup was accepted. Distinguish setup development, accepted setup evidence and production inspection so a buyer does not mistake exploratory specimens for released goods.
Ask how evidence will be retained and retrieved. The format can be simple, provided identifiers remain legible and the records can be connected to a delivered lot. Agree confidentiality and retention terms with the commercial documents; this guide does not prescribe a universal storage period or claim that any supplier already maintains one.
Keep a material change from invalidating the evidence
A reorder may retain the assembly part number while proposing a different approved wire source. Ask whether the original preparation record covers that substitution. Compare the stated conductor construction and insulation dimensions, then have the responsible team decide what setup confirmation or first-article evidence must be repeated. Do not automatically reuse results because the nominal wire size is unchanged.
The change record should identify the old and proposed material, the reason for the substitution, affected orders and required verification. If the alternative has not been accepted, keep the original offer and the alternative visibly separate. Purchasing can then evaluate availability and commercial terms without treating an unreviewed substitute as an interchangeable production input.
This also makes later troubleshooting more precise. An inspector can establish which material and process combination produced a disputed end, instead of comparing a new batch with photographs taken from a different construction.
Compare the delivered scope, including exceptions
Request separate descriptions for routine preparation, additional inspection documentation, approved rework and any outsourced examination. The cheapest-looking quotation may omit evidence that another bidder includes. Comparing the same scope is more useful than assuming every difference in price reflects production efficiency.
Clarify ownership of replacement wire when customer-supplied material is involved. State how scrap, remnants and shortages are recorded and how an unresolved material issue affects the job. These are commercial responsibilities to agree, not a reason to publish assumed scrap allowances, fixed turnaround times or guaranteed yields.
For receiving inspection, define what can be checked without dismantling finished assemblies and what production records support inaccessible characteristics. If destructive examination is required, agree specimen selection and disposition in advance. Do not damage a deliverable to obtain evidence and then return it to the shipment without an authorized basis.
The electrical-component sampling guide addresses lot identity and sampling decisions. It does not supply the missing wire-preparation acceptance criteria. Finalize the criteria first, then determine how the agreed inspection will cover the lot.
Release checklist for a purchasing review
Use the following questions at quotation review and again when first-article evidence arrives. An unanswered item should have an owner and a disposition; it should not disappear into a general statement that workmanship is satisfactory.
- Are the wire, terminal and document revisions identified for each distinct combination?
- Are conductor damage, insulation condition and strip length separate acceptance characteristics?
- Can the proposed method examine each characteristic at the required stage?
- Are actual results distinguishable from machine settings and illustrative photographs?
- Does the reaction plan connect suspect output to a defensible containment boundary?
- Does re-preparation preserve all finished-length and assembly requirements?
- Are unresolved deviations visible in the release record supplied with the lot?
Assign decisions to the right owner. Purchasing coordinates complete offers, engineering approves technical requirements and deviations, and quality verifies the agreed evidence. In a small organization one person may hold several roles, but the decision itself should still be identifiable. That prevents an urgent delivery request from silently becoming technical approval.
Buyer FAQ
How many nicked or missing strands are acceptable?
Do not use a generic percentage from an unrelated product or process. Obtain the governing requirement for the exact wire and termination. If the observed condition is not clearly covered, hold the affected material for an authorized disposition. A buyer should not derive a tolerance from the fact that a finished specimen still conducts electricity.
Does a successful pull test prove stripping was acceptable?
It supports the characteristic evaluated by the specified pull test. It does not automatically document every strand's pre-crimp condition or insulation preparation. Ask how preparation inspection, termination checks and final testing work together. Keep their scope explicit rather than describing one passing result as proof of all workmanship requirements.
Can a supplier cut off a damaged end and strip it again?
That can be an authorized disposition when the applicable instructions permit it and the remaining assembly still meets its drawing. The supplier must check the relevant length and preparation requirements again. If insufficient material remains, a fresh wire or an approved engineering disposition may be necessary; simply hiding the shortage is not acceptable.
Is automatic stripping always better than manual stripping?
An equipment category alone does not establish conformity. Compare the actual wire compatibility, controlled setup, inspection access, reaction plan and traceable evidence. Either proposed process needs to demonstrate that it meets the approved requirements for the job. Do not infer a guaranteed defect rate from a machine name or an operator's experience statement.
What should accompany a quotation for additional inspection?
Ask which characteristics and combinations are covered, how specimens are selected, what records are supplied and how nonconformities are handled. Identify destructive checks and replacement responsibilities separately. Request project-specific pricing and scheduling after the supplier understands that scope; this guide does not establish available capacity, inspection capability or delivery commitments.
RFQ: request preparation evidence for the exact assembly
Prepare the released drawing, wire list, terminal identities, expected order quantities and applicable workmanship requirements. Add the open questions on inspection access, strip measurement, suspect-material containment and re-preparation. Label missing information clearly so a preliminary estimate is not mistaken for an approved manufacturing instruction.
Use the custom cable assembly RFQ checklist to assemble the wider inquiry and review the OEM/ODM service category for the relevant project context. Then request a quotation with your wire-preparation evidence requirements. Ask the response to distinguish confirmed scope, proposed methods and technical decisions still awaiting approval.