"Does Not Conform" — and Still Passed: Evaluative vs Non-Evaluative Parameters

Here is a thing that surprises most manufacturers reading their first FMTTI report: the words "Does not conform" can appear three times in the results, and the machine still walks away with a valid Initial Commercial Test report good for seven years.

That isn't leniency, and it isn't an error. It's a structural feature of how the report is built, and understanding it is the difference between panicking over a report and reading it correctly.

What actually happened in the report

The report is a September 2021 Initial Commercial Test for a tractor-mounted, PTO-operated rotavator in the 1.5-metre class. Its results table carries a column headed Category (Evaluative / Non-Evaluative) against every characteristic — and that column is doing more work than most readers notice.

On the evaluative side, the machine passed everything: wet-land suitability, depth of cut, puddle depth, field efficiency and puddling index all met their minimums; every safety requirement conformed; no ingress of mud or water was found in the primary reduction gearbox, secondary reduction gearbox or rotary axle bearing cap after wet-land work; blade hardness conformed; and the operator and service literature was provided.

Then the dimensional section:

Characteristic	Category	Result
Dimensions of three-point linkage	Non-Evaluative	Does not conform
Dimensions of power input connection (PIC) of implement	Non-Evaluative	Does not conform
Dimensions of PIC yoke bore	Non-Evaluative	Does not conform

Three requirements, three non-conformities, and a report released with validity running to 2028.

Why the split exists

The logic becomes clear once you look at what falls on each side.

Evaluative parameters describe whether the machine does its job safely. Does it cut to depth? Does it puddle? Is it efficient in a field? Are the guards and the shear-bolt safety device present? Do the seals keep mud out of the gearboxes? Are the blades hard enough? These determine whether the machine is fit to be sold and supplied, so they gate the verdict.

Non-evaluative parameters describe how well the machine conforms to interface conventions. Three-point linkage dimensions and power input connection dimensions are about mating cleanly to a standard tractor hitch and PTO. A deviation there is a real engineering observation — but it makes the machine awkward or restrictive to couple, not unsafe or non-performing.

So the report records it, names it, and passes it to the summary for corrective action, without letting it block a machine that performs.

Why this matters commercially

If the verdict is unaffected, why care?

Because the word travels. A test report is not an internal document. It goes to scheme officers deciding subsidy eligibility, to tender committees scoring bids, and to dealers and institutional buyers who ask for it. "Does not conform" appearing three times in a results table is a conversation you will have, repeatedly, for the seven years the report is valid.

Because interface deviations are real friction. Linkage and PIC dimensions govern how easily your implement couples to whatever tractor a customer already owns. A deviation that costs nothing on the test bed can cost a dealer a sale when the machine doesn't sit right on a common model.

Because it is cheap to fix before and expensive to fix after. Dimensional conformity is a drawing-board matter. Once a report is issued it stands as written for its full validity — you don't get to amend the record because you corrected the machine afterwards.

How to read your own report

Three steps, in order:

1. Find the category column first. Before reading any result, note whether the characteristic is evaluative. That tells you whether a No is a verdict or an observation.
2. Check every evaluative row for margin, not just for Yes. A pass by two millimetres is a different machine from a pass by two centimetres, and only one of them is robust to a harder soil next time.
3. Read the summary of observations as your action list. Non-evaluative non-conformities and other comments surface there as recommendations, and your reply is recorded alongside them.

Reading a report correctly — knowing which findings are verdicts, which are observations, and which will be asked about by a buyer — is part of what test process guidance covers. AgPro doesn't run the tests; FMTTI's engineers do that at the institute. But a manufacturer who understands the evaluative split before applying designs to the right targets.

For the evaluative numbers themselves, see the minimum performance criteria a rotavator must meet. For how the comment stage works, see the draft test report comment window.