Yes, for the paperwork half. AI can read scanned certificates, pull out heat numbers and grades, match them to jobs and flag missing documents. It cannot approve a procedure, qualify a welder or accept material. A named qualified person signs each record, and your own register, not the assistant, decides what counts as complete.
This is about the office side of a welding shop, not the welding. The moment that matters is when a customer's inspector asks for the certificate behind a heat number and the qualification of whoever welded joint 7, and the answer is spread across three folders and a drawer. One illustrative job runs through this tutorial, from the first delivery note to a signed audit pack.
The records an auditor asks for, and who may sign each one
Names differ between codes, so use the ones in your customer's contract and keep them identical in your register. Codes such as ASME Section IX, AWS D1.1 and the EN ISO 15614 and ISO 9606 series cover the same chain in different words. For a shop's purposes the chain has five links.
| Record | What it proves | Usual signer | What AI can do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Welding procedure specification (WPS) | The agreed recipe for a joint type: process, material, thickness range, consumables | The person responsible for welding in your quality system | Check fields are filled, list variables beside the test record, compare revision numbers |
| Procedure qualification record (PQR; some codes write WPQR) | A test weld was made and tested to show the WPS gives sound welds | Whoever the code names as certifying the test | File it, link it to the WPS it supports, flag a WPS that cites none |
| Welder qualification record (WPQ; some codes write WQTR) | A named welder passed a test and is qualified within stated limits | The employer or a third party, as the code requires | Track limits and dates, flag lapses and expiries coming up |
| Material certificate (for example EN 10204 type 3.1) | The delivered steel meets its grade, traced by heat number | The manufacturer's authorised inspection representative; you accept it at goods-in | Read it into the register, match it to the job, flag missing, wrong-type and mismatched certificates |
| Job record: weld log, inspection, final sign-off | Who welded what, to which procedure, and that it was inspected | The responsible person, plus an inspector if the contract needs one | Assemble the index and list the gaps |
The signer column is the usual arrangement, not a rule for every code. Who approves a WPS and who certifies a test differ between codes and contracts, so confirm against what your customer's paperwork demands. Where an independent inspector or third party has to witness or certify, nothing an assistant prepares replaces that step.
Three decisions never go to the assistant: approving a procedure, deciding that a welder is qualified for a particular joint, and accepting material. Each decides whether work may proceed, and each needs a name and a date. The same split between drafting and signing runs through Electrical Installation Certificate: What AI Can Draft and You Must Sign.
The Complete Excel Course with AI Integration
From formulas and pivot tables to Power Query, DAX, VBA and AI with Copilot, ChatGPT and Claude — hands-on from the first lesson.
By Sagnik Bhattacharya and Virginia Thorn, Primetime Emmy Award winner
Buy nowOne illustrative job, from delivery note to audit pack
Job 2217 is eight platform frames, built by a six-person shop from drawing revision C. The purchase order asks for type 3.1 certificates on all structural steel and the stainless tube, a declaration for bought-in fixings, WPS and PQR references, the qualification records of the named welders and a signed final inspection record. Nine material lines arrive over four deliveries. At goods-in the storeman types each heat number, the identifier of the cast the steel came from, straight from the marking on the material. The office scans the certificates into a folder, and the matching run produces this register (all figures illustrative):
| Line | Description | PO needs | Heat marked on material | Certificate found | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 mm plate | 3.1 | 4471 | 3.1, heat 4471 | OK |
| 2 | 8 mm plate | 3.1 | 5120 | 3.1, heat 5120 | OK |
| 3 | 100 x 100 box section | 3.1 | 7738 | None for 7738 (one 3.1 lists 7733) | No certificate for this heat |
| 4 | Channel section | 3.1 | 3092 | 2.2, heat 3092 | Wrong type |
| 5 | 50 x 50 angle | 3.1 | 6015 | None | No certificate for this heat |
| 6 | 12 mm base plate | 3.1 | 6610 | 3.1, heat 6610 | OK |
| 7 | 40 x 6 flat bar | 3.1 | 2208 | 3.1, heat 2208 | OK |
| 8 | Stainless handrail tube | 3.1 | 8842 | None | No certificate for this heat |
| 9 | M16 anchor bolts, bought in | 2.1 declaration | Batch 91-A | 2.1 declaration | OK |
Five lines are clean and four need a person. Line 4 shows why the certificate type matters. An EN 10204 type 2.2 is a test report giving the results of non-specific inspection, so it does not tie the test results to the pieces you received, while a 3.1 reports specific inspection and is validated by the manufacturer's authorised inspection representative, independent of the production department. A shop that files the 2.2 as "a certificate" has a gap it cannot see. Line 3 is a puzzle the next two sections solve: a certificate exists, but its heat number does not match what is stamped on the steel. Lines 5 and 8 are plain gaps to chase.
The register is a spreadsheet, and the matching in it is done by ordinary lookup formulas rather than by the assistant. That matters. A lookup returns the same answer every time you run it, and an assistant asked the same question twice may not.
Reading certificates into the register: prompt, output and fixes
Send one certificate per request. Mixing several into one prompt makes it harder to see which field came from which page. This prompt asks for one row per heat number, because a single certificate can list several heats:
You are extracting data from one scanned material certificate. Return one
row per heat number, as a table with these columns: heat number, grade,
standard and edition, EN 10204 type as printed, product and dimensions,
supplier, certificate date, and any page you could not read.
Copy the heat number exactly as printed, character by character, and
list any character you are unsure of (for example 3 or 8, 0 or O, 5 or S).
If a field is not on the certificate, write NOT FOUND. Do not guess,
infer, or fill in a field from the order. Do not judge whether the
certificate is acceptable.A realistic output for the box section on line 3 (illustrative) looks like this:
heat number: 7733 (unsure: last character could be 3 or 8)
grade: as printed on the certificate
standard and edition: NOT FOUND
EN 10204 type as printed: 3.1
product and dimensions: box section 100 x 100 x 5
supplier: [supplier name]
certificate date: 14 September
pages not read: noneThree details make that output useful. It admits doubt about a character, it writes NOT FOUND rather than inventing a standard, and it declines to judge acceptability. The instruction to list unsure characters matters: left to itself, an assistant tends to return a tidy-looking number even from a poor scan, and the tidy look is what fools people. Here the stamp on the certificate really said 7738, and a shadow across the scan made the 8 look like a 3. The person opens the scan, corrects the row, and initials it. That is the line 3 mystery from the register solved: a misread, caught because the heat number on the steel was typed independently.
Now the sums on accuracy, again illustrative. Seven certificates with eight fields each is 56 fields, and the first pass gets 53 right. The three errors are the heat number on line 3, a grade on line 2 read from the wrong column of a two-column table, and the section thickness on line 3. The lookup caught only the first. The grade and the thickness sat quietly in the register looking plausible until the checker read each scan beside the purchase order, which is why that read happens on every certificate, whatever the lookup says.
Scan quality matters as much as the prompt. Skewed pages, shadows and fax-quality copies are where digits get confused, so a clear flat scan from the goods-in desk beats any prompt improvement. If a supplier only emails photos of certificates, ask for the PDF version, and mark a row as read from a photo.
Matching by heat number: a lookup that catches misreads
The design rule is two independent readings of the same number. The storeman types the heat number from the steel, and the assistant reads it from the certificate. A lookup joins the two. If they agree, the certificate belongs to that steel as far as the paperwork can show. If they disagree, the row is flagged, and the cause is a misread, a typing slip or a certificate for different steel. That last cause is the one an audit exists to catch, and the sheet cannot tell it apart from the other two. A person with the scan and the stamped steel can.
The layout is two sheets. Certs holds one row per heat: file name, heat number, type as printed, grade, product, supplier, date, and the initials of whoever checked the row. Register holds one row per material line: line, description, type the order requires, heat marked on the material, certificate type found, status and checker's initials. Two formulas do the work in row 2 of Register:
E2: =IFERROR(INDEX(Certs!$C:$C, MATCH($D2, Certs!$B:$B, 0)), "NO CERT")
F2: =IF(E2="NO CERT", "No certificate for this heat",
IF(E2<>C2, "Wrong type", "OK"))Format both heat-number columns as text before pasting anything in, so leading zeros and letters survive. Trim stray spaces from extracted values at paste time, because a trailing space makes two identical numbers look different. Any difference between the type found and the type required is flagged, including a 3.2 where a 3.1 was asked for: whether another type is acceptable is the customer's decision, not the sheet's. Bought-in items identified by batch number rather than heat number work with the same key.
An assistant is a good helper for building the sheet, which is a different job from doing the matching. Describe the two sheets in words, ask for the formulas, then test them on three rows you already know the answer to: one that should say OK, one that should say no certificate, and one that should say wrong type. Older guides mention Excel's COPILOT function inside cells; Microsoft retired it on 14 September 2026, which is one more reason to keep the matching in plain formulas that give the same answer every time you open the file.
The same idea of two independent readings of one identifier powers the drill in Mock Recall Template: Run a Traceability Exercise With AI Help. A sheet that links each finished frame back to its heat numbers lets you run the same exercise for steel: pick a heat number, and list every job it went into.
Joint log flags: procedure revisions, ranges and lapsed welders
Materials are half the pack. The other half is whether a current procedure and a qualified welder sit behind every joint. The shop keeps a joint log (joint, detail, WPS and revision cited, welder, date) and two registers beside it: one for WPSs (number, revision, thickness range covered, supporting PQR) and one for welders (ID, process, thickness range, test date, last used). A prompt can compare the three tables:
Below are three tables: a joint log, a WPS register and a welder register.
For each joint, list only the problems you can see by comparing them:
(1) the WPS revision cited is not the current one in the register;
(2) the plate thickness is outside the thickness range on the WPS;
(3) the welder has no register entry for that process;
(4) the welder's last use of the process is older than the rule in the
register header.
Quote the cells you compared. Do not say whether any joint is acceptable.On job 2217 it returns this (illustrative, with ranges and a six-month rule invented for the example):
| Joint | Detail | WPS cited | Welder | Flag raised |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J1 | Base plate to column, fillet, 12 mm plate | WPS-014 rev 3 | W2 | 12 mm is above the 3 to 10 mm range listed for WPS-014 |
| J2 | Rail to post, fillet, 8 mm plate | WPS-014 rev 2 | W1 | Cites rev 2; register shows rev 3 as current |
| J3 | Brace to frame, fillet, 8 mm plate | WPS-014 rev 3 | W3 | Last use of the process was seven months ago; the rule in this example is six |
| J4 | Plate splice, butt weld, 10 mm plate | WPS-021 rev 1 | W2 | None |
| J5 | Stainless rail, TIG | WPS-030 rev 2 | W4 | None (the tube certificate is still missing on line 8) |
Each flag goes to the responsible person, not back to the assistant. J1 means either another WPS covers 12 mm or a new procedure test is needed. J2 needs someone to read what changed between revisions two and three, since it may be a header correction or a real change to a variable, and then decide whether the joint is covered and the log needs correcting. J3 sends W3 for the re-confirmation the code requires, or moves the joint to another welder. In all three, the assistant has compared cells and quoted them, and a person has made the call.
One limit to respect: ranges on a real WPS are often conditional on process, joint type or position, and an assistant comparing "3 to 10 mm" with "12 mm" can flatten that nuance. Feed it only plain columns, and have the person read the WPS itself for the conditions. Replace the invented ranges and the six-month rule with the real ones from the WPS, the PQR and the code your customer names, and print the rule in the register header so the prompt can quote it.
Welder dates suit a formula more than a prompt. Add a column for "valid until" and one for "continuity due", sort a view for the next 60 days, and let the assistant help you build it. Expiry Date Tracking Spreadsheet for Staff Licences, Built With AI walks through that sheet.
Who signs what on job 2217, and what the signature means
A signature is a statement. When a person initials a row, they are saying they checked it themselves, not that a tool produced it. Here is the sign-off sheet for the example job, filled in:
| Step | Prepared by | Signed by | The signature means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heat number typed at goods-in | Storeman | Storeman, with date | I read this number from the steel myself |
| Certificate row in the register | Assistant drafts the row; clerk enters it | Clerk, after comparing the scan with the row | Heat, grade, type and size match the scan |
| Material acceptance against the order | Register status column | Responsible person | This heat's certificate meets the order for type, grade and size |
| Procedure revision and thickness flags | Assistant lists, quoting cells | Responsible person | Every joint has a current procedure behind it, or the exception is recorded |
| Welder qualification | Register plus flags | Responsible person, and a third party where the code requires one | This welder was qualified for this process and range on the day of welding |
| Customer audit pack | Office assembles from the register | Responsible person, and the inspector if the contract names one | The pack is complete and consistent with the job |
Two rules keep this honest. Initials are typed by the person who did the check, never pre-filled or generated, and a row without them does not count. And the register carries a "checked on" date beside each set of initials, so a certificate scanned in March cannot be waved through in September on the strength of an old tick. If your customer's quality requirements say anything about software or AI in records, follow them. If they say nothing, a line on the cover of the pack stating who checked what, and when, answers most questions before they are asked.
Chasing the missing certificates the day the steel arrives
Run the matching when a delivery lands, not when the pack is due. A certificate gap found at goods-in costs one email. The same gap found after the steel is cut and welded costs a conversation with the customer. The register's status column feeds the chase directly, and an assistant can draft one message per supplier from the lines marked "No certificate" or "Wrong type". A sample for the two suppliers on job 2217 (illustrative):
Hi [first name],
On your delivery of [date] against our order [order number] we received
50 x 50 angle, heat 6015 marked on the material, and 100 x 100 box
section, heat 7738. The order asks for EN 10204 type 3.1 certificates
and we hold none for these two heats. Please send them as PDFs showing
those heat numbers, or tell me if the certificates you hold are for
different heats.
The certificate we hold for the channel section, heat 3092, is a type
2.2 test report. Our order asks for type 3.1. Can you supply a 3.1 for
that heat?
[your name]Notice the second paragraph asks for the type the order names and does not argue about it. Whether the customer would accept a 2.2 is their decision, so the message does not offer one. For the wider habit of chasing paperwork from outside suppliers, AI in Contracting: Subcontractor Paperwork Chasing Checklist has a reusable chase sequence.
Assembling the customer audit pack from the register
The pack is a folder with a cover sheet and an index, then the records in a fixed order. File names carry the key so nobody has to ask where anything is: 2217_MC_H4471_3.1.pdf for the certificate on heat 4471, 2217_WPS-014_rev3.pdf for a procedure. For job 2217 the index runs like this:
- Cover sheet: job number, customer order number, drawing revision, and who checked what and when.
- The register print, with OK against every line or an exception note.
- Material certificates in register order, filed by heat number.
- The WPSs as used, at the revisions used, each with its supporting PQR.
- One welder qualification record for every welder who welded on the job, valid on the dates they welded.
- The joint log, naming the WPS and welder for each joint.
- Inspection and any NDT records the order requires, then the final inspection record.
- Exceptions and agreed deviations, each with the customer's written agreement attached.
Here is what the register changes in the hours, again illustrative. The checking does not vanish. It moves from searching to reading flagged items.
| Task for one pack | By hand | With register and assistant |
|---|---|---|
| Match certificates to lines and check their details | 70 min | 55 min (15 for the run, 40 checking scans against the order) |
| Compare procedures, thickness ranges and welders | 50 min | 20 min, mostly the responsible person reading flagged WPSs |
| Chase missing or wrong documents | 25 min | 10 min, because the messages are drafted from the status column |
| Assemble, index and sign | 55 min | 25 min |
| Total | 200 min | 110 min |
Ninety minutes on one pack is a modest saving, and the honest framing is that the larger gain comes from running the check at goods-in, when a missing certificate costs an email, rather than at pack time, when it can cost a re-supply. A shop that sends two packs a month recovers three hours. A shop whose customer audits a random pack each quarter gains something harder to price: the one that gets picked is already in order.
Where certificate automation goes wrong
- Misread heat numbers. Zero and O, three and eight, five and S. Two independent readings, one typed from the steel, catch a misread because both would have to be wrong in the same way. Where a certificate matches the steel on the lookup, still read the scan for the grade and size.
- A gap filled with a guess. An assistant may supply a standard edition the certificate never printed. The NOT FOUND instruction reduces this, and the checker comparing the row with the scan catches the rest.
- Multi-heat certificates. Only the first heat is extracted and the rest silently dropped. Count the heats on the page and compare it with the rows produced.
- A missing second page. Chemistry on page 1, mechanical results on page 2, and only one page scanned. Record the page count at scanning and ask the assistant to state the pages it read.
- The right grade from the wrong batch. Same section, same supplier, different heat. Only the heat-number lookup catches this, which is why the key is the heat and not the description.
- A stale procedure revision. Someone copies last job's log and the old revision rides along. The revision flag in the joint prompt exists for this.
- Treating no flags as approval. The assistant flags only what it can compare. A joint with no flag has not been approved, just not contradicted.
Customer drawings, welder details and what a plan covers
Certificates and drawings often belong to your customer. Read the contract or the order terms for any confidentiality clause before pasting their documents into an assistant, and do it from a work account. Consumer plans for ChatGPT and Claude let users switch off the use of their chats for model training in privacy settings, while the business plans (ChatGPT Business, Claude Team) do not train on business content by default. Welder qualification records carry personal details, so use the welder's ID in prompts and keep names in the register only.
Prices as of October 2026, from the vendors' plan pages: ChatGPT Plus $20 a month, Claude Pro $20 a month ($17 billed annually) and Google AI Pro $19.99 a month for individuals. ChatGPT Business is $25 a seat monthly or $20 billed annually, and Claude Team is $25 or $20, both with a two-seat minimum, which puts a small shop at roughly $40 to $50 a month. File limits matter less than you would think when each request carries one certificate: Claude reads PDFs of up to 1,000 pages (images and layout only in files of 100 pages or fewer; longer files are read as text alone), ChatGPT takes files up to 512 MB, and the Gemini app takes ten files per prompt.
To test the idea cheaply, use three old jobs whose packs you already know were complete. Run the extraction on their certificates, build the register, and see whether it finds the gaps you remember and nothing you do not. If it invents a problem or misses a real one, you have found out on a job that cannot hurt. Then run the first live job from goods-in: the storeman types heat numbers, the clerk scans, the register shows red lines the same day, and the responsible person signs the pack at the end. A shop that wants the wider list of office jobs to hand over will find it in AI Tools for Welding Shops: Quotes, Drawings and Job Scheduling.
Questions from welding shops about AI and certificates
Can AI approve a welding procedure specification?
No. Approval belongs to the person your quality system names as responsible for welding, working from the supporting test record and the code the customer specifies. An assistant can list the variables side by side, check that every field is filled and compare revision numbers, which saves that person time. The approval, and the name against it, stays human.
Is an AI-read scan good enough as the certificate record?
The record is the original certificate, scanned clearly and filed under its heat number. What the assistant extracts into a sheet is working data, useful for matching and for finding gaps. Have a person confirm the heat number, grade and certificate type against the scan before a row counts as checked, and keep the checker's initials in the register.
Is a type 3.2 certificate better than a type 3.1?
It is a different level of validation, not a better document. Under EN 10204, a 3.1 is validated by the manufacturer's authorised inspection representative, independent of production. A 3.2 is validated by that representative and also by the purchaser's representative or an inspector designated by official regulations. Use whichever the order states, and ask the customer before substituting one for the other.
Do I need a paid AI plan for certificate matching?
Not to start. A free tier can read a handful of certificates to test the idea, though limits vary by vendor. Move to a business plan if the documents are confidential: ChatGPT Business and Claude Team both need at least two seats, roughly $40 to $50 a month, and do not train on business content by default. Check your customer's contract before uploading their drawings.
Further reads
- How to Price Welding Jobs: Build a Rate Sheet With AI — Price the job before the paperwork starts.
- How to Quote Fabrication Jobs: Can AI Price One From a Drawing? — Can AI price a fabrication job from a drawing?
- AI Tools for Shop Drawings: Checking Fabrication Drawings Against the Spec — Check fabrication drawings against the spec.
- AI for Welders: What a Welding Business Can Hand Over Today — The wider list of jobs a welding business can hand over.
- AI in Steel Detailing: Gains for a Small Office, and Tasks to Avoid — Gains and limits for a small steel detailing office.
- Construction Handover Pack Checklist: Gather the Paperwork With AI — A parallel handover pack, gathered with AI.
- Compliance Calendar: Track Licences, Insurance and Certificates — Track licences, insurance and certificate expiry in one calendar.
- AI-Generated Welder Website Marketing: Case Study Pages for Custom Work — Turn job photos and spec notes into case study pages that bring custom fabrication enquiries, with claim checks, consent wording and a better quote form.
- Welding Marketing: Website, Google Profile and Posts Drafted With AI — A welding marketing kit: five job-type pages, a Google Business Profile for a mobile or workshop welder, and weekly posts from real before-and-after photos.
- AI Tools and AI Development: The Complete 2026 Guide — the AI hub, including every tutorial in the AI-for-business series.
Sources: LRQA overview guide to EN 10204 Type 3.2, Wermac summary of EN 10204 inspection documents, Wikipedia articles on welding procedure specifications and welder qualification, ChatGPT, Claude and Google AI plan pages (October 2026). Job numbers, heat numbers, registers and times in the examples are illustrative.