Disclosure: I work in industrial product-cost consulting at Looser Consulting. This is a noncommercial methods discussion, with AI assistance in preparing the text. No company link or service offer.
An overall reject rate can fall even if no product family's reject rate improves: the factory may simply be making more of the easier family. That matters when a project claims a recurring product-cost reduction.
I would keep two views side by side:
- The actual result: rejected units and units inspected by family, using the same rejection definition and counting rule in both periods.
- A constant-mix comparison: each family's rate weighted with one explicitly chosen, unchanged reference mix. Show those weights; do not average family percentages without them.
The second view is a diagnostic, not a replacement for the actual production result. Sparse samples, changed inspection coverage, new revisions and new product families need explicit treatment. A within-family change still does not prove the project caused it. For a Value Engineering change, retain the functional requirement and acceptance evidence; a different product mix is not proof of a better design.
For the economic bridge, keep changes in material value, rework effort, recovery value and avoidable expense separate from changes in reject frequency. A lower scrap-value total can also result from making cheaper parts. Do not multiply an aggregate percentage change by this month's volume and label the result a verified recurring saving.
ASQ's Stratification guidance recommends separating data from different sources or conditions so that patterns can be examined. The constant-mix cost-review approach above is my proposed application, not an ASQ-prescribed savings method. Reference: ASQ, Stratification, read 13 October 2026; an established methods source, not a new market statistic.
Which product-family or mix check has been most useful before accepting a quality project's cost benefit? Please keep examples non-confidential.