As long as it carries the same specifications as the WPS calls for you are OK.
One small caveat, not of a technical nature, is that there are some subtle difference in the behaviour of SMAW electrodes from different manufacturers. This will be picked up by good welders.
One other small things if you are in a shop, welders tend to prefer one brand, usually the brand they first trained and tested with.
Each manufacturer has recommended welding parameter for their electrode. I worry that if we change only electrode brand and model in WPS, there will be poor quality of welding work.
In another case, if supporting PQR refers to another brand/model. Should we use as supporting document for WPS.
Personally I've never seen a brand called out in a WPS only the AWS classification.
For the same, AWS classification the welding parameters aren't that much different and should be covered by the normal spread in the WPS and PGR. Unless you are constantly monitoring each welder they have a tendency to slightly alter the parameters on their end, not necessarily in the limits set by design.
In writing a WPS or WPQ you need to give a little latitude so as not to box yourself in.
This is all true. One caution though. "G" suffix type electrodes (Eeg E7018-G) are so called "general electrodes", which means they do not comply with any other classification of SFA specification. For "G" electrodes I recommend to consider a tradename to be an essential variable. For standard "straight" SFE compliant electrodes the revision of WPS may or may not be required, depending on the order technical requirements. Requalification should not be required either.
It is my understanding that the question was posted by a fabricator of welded pressure equipment/piping. Depending on quality system employed in the shop the WPS may need revision without requalification if the Quality System says so. Technically there is no firm requirement for that in the code.
