# AsterValve housing nonconformance

**Case packet version:** 2026.08.31-practice-3

This is a fictional, sanitized supplier-quality training case. Products, drawings, measurements, suppliers, people, and records are fabricated, and the exercise does not approve engineering, safety, regulatory, or disposition decisions.

## Case brief · CB01

AsterValve is a fictional manufacturer receiving 600 machined aluminum housings from supplier Ridgeway Precision. Drawing revision F requires bore diameter 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters, flatness no greater than 0.08 millimeters, and a material certificate for alloy 6061-T6. The purchase order references revision F, but Ridgeway's traveler references revision E. Incoming inspection measured 32 pieces using sampling plan QP-14. Seven bore results range from 24.06 to 24.11, while all recorded flatness results are within limit. The bore gauge shows calibration due July 31; inspection occurred August 2. A second gauge is in calibration, but no correlation study exists between the two instruments. The material certificate says 6061 but omits temper and heat-lot traceability. Production has 90 housings remaining and says the line will stop tomorrow. Engineering believes the oversized bore may be acceptable with a different seal, but no deviation or validation is approved. The supplier says tool wear caused the drift and submits a corrective-action form listing operator retraining as the root cause. Its attached maintenance log shows the cutting insert exceeded its change interval by 18 percent, yet the form does not explain why the control failed. A prior lot had two borderline bore measurements, but it was accepted without a trend review. Purchasing wants to use 120 pieces under deviation and debit the supplier later. Customer requirements and any regulatory impact are not yet mapped. Learners must control requirements and records, identify critical characteristics, evaluate measurement evidence, document nonconformance without blame, examine corrective-action logic, and govern supplier change and performance. They cannot accept product, set sampling, approve alternate seals, determine compliance, or close corrective action without authorized technical and quality review.

## Case record

- **F01 · confirmed:** The received lot contains 600 machined aluminum housings.
- **F02 · confirmed:** Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements.
- **F03 · conflicting:** The purchase order references revision F while the supplier traveler references revision E.
- **F04 · confirmed:** Incoming inspection sampled thirty-two pieces under plan QP-14.
- **F05 · confirmed:** Seven bore readings range from 24.06 to 24.11 millimeters against the revision-F requirement of 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters; individual reading rows and sample trace are not supplied.
- **F06 · confirmed:** The gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days.
- **F07 · unknown:** No documented correlation exists between the expired-status gauge and the in-calibration alternative.
- **F08 · confirmed:** The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.
- **F09 · provisional:** Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining.
- **F10 · provisional:** Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved.
- **F11 · conflicting:** The supplier names operator training as root cause while maintenance evidence shows extended tool use.
- **F12 · confirmed:** A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review.

## Module assignments and operating guides

### Module 1 — Control the requirement record

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Resolve drawing, traveler, certificate, and inspection-record version questions before disposition.

**Deliverable:** A document-status matrix and containment notice.

**Provided inputs**

- **M01-I01 · case-fact · F02:** Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements.
- **M01-I02 · case-fact · F03:** The purchase order references revision F while the supplier traveler references revision E.
- **M01-I03 · case-fact · F08:** The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.
- **M01-I04 · case-fact · F12:** A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review.
- **M01-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M01-S01 · assignment-scope · F02, F03, F08, F12:** Build a starter version of “A document-status matrix and containment notice.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F02, F03, F08, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M01-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F02, F03, F08, and F12; preserve revision F as governing, the traveler revision-E conflict, certificate omissions, and prior-lot trend gap without changing any source record.
- [ ] STOP “Control the requirement record” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F02, F03, F08, and F12; preserve revision F as governing, the traveler revision-E conflict, certificate omissions, and prior-lot trend gap without changing any source record. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Inventory the purchase order, drawing, traveler, material certificate, inspection record, and prior-lot evidence as separate controlled items.
2. Record revision F as the supplied governing drawing and preserve the traveler revision-E conflict exactly.
3. Mark effective dates, controlled locations, record owners, and obsolete-document withdrawal evidence not supplied.
4. Route missing temper, heat-lot traceability, and customer/material questions to authorized quality or engineering reviewers.
5. Define a learner-proposed containment notice that preserves originals and blocks silent replacement; do not claim notice issuance.
6. Final-QC every item for source, revision/date, owner, gap, containment status, and no disposition or approval claim.

### Field-by-field guidance — M01-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Document item | For Document item, name one controlled record and its function: revision-F drawing/PO requirement, revision-E supplier traveler, material certificate, or prior-lot trend record. Cite M01-I01 (F02), M01-I02 (F03), M01-I03 (F08), or M01-I04 (F12) for the matching item, then mark controlled location/effective copy “Not supplied” where absent. Do not merge or replace originals. Review: quality/document-control owner and engineering or supplier-quality specialist. |
| Received revision or status | For Received revision or status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M01-I01 (F02), M01-I02 (F03); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Governing requirement | Identify the controlled requirement/configuration, observable evidence, measurement validity, affected-scope question, and pending quality disposition for Governing requirement. Evidence: M01-I01 (F02), M01-I03 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not replace an approved plan, infer root cause, silently alter a record, or claim containment, acceptance, or effectiveness. Escalate to the authorized technical or safety owner. |
| Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M01-I01 (F02), M01-I02 (F03), M01-I03 (F08); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Effective date | For Effective date, enter the date the controlled requirement became authorized for use, not merely received or referenced. Cite M01-I01 (F02), M01-I02 (F03); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing document effective date. Never infer effectiveness from a revision label, receipt date, traveler, or purchase-order reference. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Original-preservation status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Original-preservation status. Evidence: no direct “Control the requirement record” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Obsolete-withdrawal or containment status | Obsolete-withdrawal or containment status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Control the requirement record” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Gap | For Gap, separate the revision conflict in M01-I02 (F03), certificate omissions in M01-I03 (F08), and prior-trend omission in M01-I04 (F12), then name the exact controlled copy, trace record, or decision still not supplied. Explain why each absence blocks review and request only that evidence. Never merge distinct gaps or imply a request was answered. Keep pending for document control, supplier quality, and engineering as applicable. |
| Owner or reviewer | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Owner or reviewer. Evidence: M01-I04 (F12); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Control the requirement record” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M01-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Document item | Received revision or status | Governing requirement | Source input ID | Effective date | Original-preservation status | Obsolete-withdrawal or containment status | Gap | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Drawing/PO/traveler requirement set for the received lot. | PO references revision F; supplier traveler references revision E (M01-I02, F03). | Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements (M01-I01, F02). | M01-I01 (F02); M01-I02 (F03); M01-I03 (F08); M01-I04 (F12) | Not supplied — revision F is identified, but its controlled effective date and authorization record are absent. | Learner control — preserve the PO, revision-E traveler, revision-F drawing reference, and incomplete certificate as separate originals; no source record is altered. | Pending — withdrawal/containment record for revision E is not supplied; no containment action is claimed. | Material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability (M01-I03, F08); effective-date and controlled-copy evidence are also not supplied. | Authorized quality/document-control owner, with engineering authority for governing revision and material requirements and supplier-quality review for certificate traceability; customer/regulatory review applies only if applicability is established. Assignments and decisions remain pending. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M01-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Document item | Received revision or status | Governing requirement | Source input ID | Effective date | Original-preservation status | Obsolete-withdrawal or containment status | Gap | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Not supplied — complete controlled document package and document index. | Conflict open — PO revision F versus traveler revision E. | Revision F is identified, but controlled effective-copy evidence is not supplied. | M01-I04 (F12); M01-I03 (F08); M01-I02 (F03); M01-I01 (F02) | Not supplied — controlled revision-F effective date and approval record. | Not supplied — preservation location, access, and record hash/version controls. | Not supplied — authorized withdrawal/containment decision and evidence. | Temper, heat-lot trace, effective date, controlled copy, prior-lot trend review, and disposition remain open. | Authorized quality/document-control owner plus engineering and supplier-quality reviewers for the named revision and certificate gaps; individual assignments and decisions are not supplied. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M01-A02 · Containment notice** — Produce a bounded, reviewable containment notice from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M01-I02 and address M01-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop disposition, silent document replacement, or obsolete-record destruction while governing revision, certificate evidence, or authorized ownership is unresolved. |
| **Go** | Proceed to document-control review when every record has a cited status, gap, owner, and preservation action. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate revision/material/customer-requirement conflicts to authorized quality and engineering owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Governing and conflicting revisions are explicitly distinguished.
- [ ] Original records and missing certificate elements are preserved as open evidence.
- [ ] No containment notice, replacement, approval, or disposition is claimed.

### Artifact map

- **M01-A01 · Document-status matrix:** Produce a bounded, reviewable document-status matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 6. Criteria: M01-EC01, M01-EC03, M01-EC04, M01-EC02. Scoped inputs: M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04.
- **M01-A02 · Containment notice:** Produce a bounded, reviewable containment notice from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 1. Criteria: M01-EC02. Scoped inputs: M01-I02.

### Evidence criteria

- **M01-EC01:** Identifies governing revision, effective dates, owners, and obsolete documents
- **M01-EC02:** Preserves original records and blocks silent replacement
- **M01-EC03:** Routes missing material and customer requirements to authorized owners
- **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Module 2 — Map critical characteristics

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Connect bore, flatness, material, and traceability requirements to product risks and controls.

**Deliverable:** A critical-to-quality characteristic matrix with owner decisions.

**Provided inputs**

- **M02-I01 · case-fact · F02:** Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements.
- **M02-I02 · case-fact · F05:** Seven bore readings range from 24.06 to 24.11 millimeters against the revision-F requirement of 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters; individual reading rows and sample trace are not supplied.
- **M02-I03 · case-fact · F08:** The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.
- **M02-I04 · case-fact · F09:** Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining.
- **M02-I05 · case-fact · F10:** Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved.
- **M02-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M02-S01 · assignment-scope · F02, F05, F08, F09, F10:** Build a starter version of “A critical-to-quality characteristic matrix with owner decisions.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F02, F05, F08, F09, F10, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M02-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F02, F05, F08, F09, and F10; distinguish controlled requirements from supplied measurement summary, certificate gaps, production pressure, and an unapproved alternate-seal hypothesis.
- [ ] STOP “Map critical characteristics” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F02, F05, F08, F09, and F10; distinguish controlled requirements from supplied measurement summary, certificate gaps, production pressure, and an unapproved alternate-seal hypothesis. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Create separate rows for bore, flatness, material/temper, heat-lot traceability, and any proposed seal-related characteristic.
2. Cite the controlled requirement and measurement method where supplied; mark absent methods and limits not supplied.
3. State fit, function, customer, safety, or regulatory consequences only as unconfirmed risks unless the packet confirms them.
4. Define learner-proposed reaction plans with containment, evidence, and authorized technical-decision fields.
5. Keep production line-stop prediction and alternate-seal idea separate from product-acceptance authority.
6. Final-QC source, confidence, risk wording, reaction owner, gap, and no approval or validated-effect claim.

### Field-by-field guidance — M02-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| CTQ ID | CTQ ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. No “Map critical characteristics” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Characteristic | For Characteristic, name one measurable product or documentation feature controlled by the drawing and keep it distinct from the observed result. Use M02-I01 (F02) to identify bore, flatness, or material-certificate characteristics and M02-I02 (F05) for the supplied bore context; mark any other characteristic “Not supplied.” Do not infer criticality, cause, or disposition. Keep pending for the quality and engineering owners. |
| Controlled requirement | For Controlled requirement, transcribe the exact requirement, unit, tolerance, and governing revision with its source. Use M02-I01 (F02) for revision-F control and M02-I02 (F05) for the 24.00 ± 0.05 mm bore requirement; mark the controlled drawing copy or effective evidence “Not supplied” where absent. Do not turn an observed reading or proposed reaction into the requirement. Escalate to authorized engineering/quality reviewers for interpretation. |
| Measurement or control method | For Measurement or control method, identify the controlled characteristic and approved method or plan, instrument or fixture, resolution and validity evidence, units, operator or environment when relevant, sample population and selection, sample size and frequency, raw trace, acceptance rule, and response to an invalid or out-of-control result. M02-I01 (F02) supplies the revision-F characteristics and M02-I02 (F05) supplies only a seven-reading summary. Mark the instrument, method, sample trace, validity, frequency, and approved response “Not supplied.” Do not infer measurement validity or product acceptance. Review: authorized quality, metrology, and engineering roles. |
| Supported evidence | For Supported evidence, transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty. Cite M02-I01 (F02), M02-I02 (F05), M02-I03 (F08); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing bounded evidence. Never convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M02-I01 (F02), M02-I02 (F05), M02-I03 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Potential-impact hypothesis | Potential-impact hypothesis: Label each statement as observed fact, bounded impact, or learner hypothesis and describe the evidence that could confirm or refute it. No “Map critical characteristics” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing reasoning boundary. Do not state causation, legal effect, product impact, blame, or affected scope from incomplete evidence. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Reaction plan | For Reaction plan, write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. No “Map critical characteristics” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision gate. Never execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Technical owner | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Technical owner. Evidence: no direct “Map critical characteristics” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the authorized technical or safety owner. |
| Gap | Gap: State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. No “Map critical characteristics” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing gap discipline. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M02-I05 (F10); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M02-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| CTQ ID | Characteristic | Controlled requirement | Measurement or control method | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Potential-impact hypothesis | Reaction plan | Technical owner | Gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M02-A01-EX-01 | Bore diameter on revision-F machined housing. | 24.00 ± 0.05 mm under drawing revision F (M02-I01, F02; M02-I02, F05). | Summary of seven readings is supplied; individual rows, sample trace, instrument validity, sampling basis, and approved control method are not supplied (M02-I02, F05). | M02-I01 (F02) records “Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements.”; M02-I02 (F05) records “Seven bore readings range from 24.06 to 24.11 millimeters against the revision-F requirement of 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters; individual reading rows and sample trace are not supplied.”; M02-I03 (F08) records “The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.”. Preserve this as the supplied observation with its source and confidence; add no unstated conclusion. | M02-I01 (F02); M02-I02 (F05); M02-I03 (F08); M02-I04 (F09); M02-I05 (F10) | Learner hypothesis only — readings above 24.05 mm may affect fit; affected product scope and actual impact require engineering and valid measurement review. | Learner-proposed gate — preserve evidence and request qualified measurement/engineering review before any acceptance, alternate-seal use, release, rework, or disposition; no action is claimed. | the authorized technical/safety or engineering reviewer, with the designated release owner; assignment or decision remains pending unless evidenced. | Raw reading rows, traceability, valid measurement basis, material temper/heat lot, and authorized alternate-seal validation are not supplied. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M02-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| CTQ ID | Characteristic | Controlled requirement | Measurement or control method | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Potential-impact hypothesis | Reaction plan | Technical owner | Gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M02-A01-GAP-01 | Bore requirement identified; affected CTQ scope and linkage to each sampled unit are not supplied. | Revision F and 24.00 ± 0.05 mm supplied; controlled drawing copy/effective evidence not supplied. | Not supplied — raw readings, unit trace, instrument validity, and approved method. | M02-I05 (F10) records “Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved.”; M02-I04 (F09) records “Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining.”; M02-I03 (F08) records “The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.”. Additional support is not supplied — the exact evidence needed to support any additional claim for “Supported evidence”; do not infer the absent fact. | M02-I05 (F10); M02-I04 (F09); M02-I03 (F08); M02-I02 (F05); M02-I01 (F02) | Unconfirmed — no fit/functional evidence or affected-scope determination. | Not approved — technical/quality disposition and line-stop response remain pending. | the authorized technical/safety or engineering reviewer, with the designated release owner; assignment or decision is not supplied. | Measurement validity, trace, impact, containment, deviation, and disposition are open. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

This module has no separate supporting artifact; complete the principal artifact and its decision record.

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop acceptance or alternate-material/seal use when controlled requirement, measurement evidence, traceability, validation, or technical authority is absent. |
| **Go** | Proceed to CTQ review when each characteristic has a requirement source, bounded risk, reaction proposal, and owner. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate product, safety, regulatory, substitution, or validation decisions to qualified quality/engineering owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Bore, flatness, material, traceability, and proposed-seal questions are separately represented.
- [ ] Risk statements remain hypotheses and production pressure does not become acceptance authority.
- [ ] No deviation, validation, approval, or disposition is invented.

### Artifact map

- **M02-A01 · Critical-to-quality characteristic matrix:** Produce a bounded, reviewable critical-to-quality characteristic matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 5. Criteria: M02-EC01, M02-EC02, M02-EC03, M02-EC04. Scoped inputs: M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04, M02-I05.

### Evidence criteria

- **M02-EC01:** Cites controlled requirement and measurement method
- **M02-EC02:** States potential fit, function, customer, safety, or regulatory impact as unconfirmed risk
- **M02-EC03:** Names reaction plan and technical decision owner
- **M02-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Module 3 — Evaluate measurement evidence

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Assess what the sample and calibration status can and cannot support.

**Deliverable:** An inspection-evidence review and measurement-system escalation request that uses the supplied seven-reading range but leaves individual readings, instrument identifier, operator, inspection time, and sample trace not supplied.

**Provided inputs**

- **M03-I01 · case-fact · F04:** Incoming inspection sampled thirty-two pieces under plan QP-14.
- **M03-I02 · case-fact · F05:** Seven bore readings range from 24.06 to 24.11 millimeters against the revision-F requirement of 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters; individual reading rows and sample trace are not supplied.
- **M03-I03 · case-fact · F06:** The gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days.
- **M03-I04 · case-fact · F07:** No documented correlation exists between the expired-status gauge and the in-calibration alternative.
- **M03-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M03-S01 · assignment-scope · F04, F05, F06, F07:** Build a starter version of “An inspection-evidence review and measurement-system escalation request that uses the supplied seven-reading range but leaves individual readings, instrument identifier, operator, inspection time, and sample trace not supplied.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F04, F05, F06, F07, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M03-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F04–F07; preserve the 32-piece sample, seven-reading range, tolerance, expired calibration status, and absent gauge-correlation evidence exactly.
- [ ] STOP “Evaluate measurement evidence” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F04–F07; preserve the 32-piece sample, seven-reading range, tolerance, expired calibration status, and absent gauge-correlation evidence exactly. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Record sample count, plan QP-14, seven-reading summary, units, and stated tolerance without fabricating individual readings.
2. List raw rows, part/sample trace, instrument ID, operator, timestamps, environmental conditions, and inspection-record version as not supplied.
3. Record that the gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days and that documented correlation to an in-calibration alternative is absent.
4. Do not retrospectively switch gauges or replace the approved sampling plan; propose a qualified measurement-system review instead.
5. Explain that unresolved calibration/correlation uncertainty blocks confident product disposition without declaring every measurement invalid.
6. Final-QC numeric fidelity, units, source IDs, evidence gaps, reviewer boundary, and pending result/disposition.

### Field-by-field guidance — M03-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Evidence item | For Evidence item, identify one inspectable record: the 32-piece QP-14 sample record from M03-I01 (F04), seven-reading bore summary from M03-I02 (F05), gauge calibration record from M03-I03 (F06), or correlation record sought because of M03-I04 (F07). Name its date/identifier and trace fields, marking absent details “Not supplied.” Do not call a summary raw data. Review: supplier-quality and metrology reviewers. |
| Supplied value | For Supplied value, transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty. Cite M03-I02 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing bounded evidence. Never convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Units or tolerance | For Units or tolerance, copy the supplied unit and controlled tolerance without recomputing them: M03-I02 (F05) supplies millimeters and 24.00 ± 0.05 mm. Mark method, uncertainty, or any other tolerance “Not supplied” unless separately evidenced. Do not use the 32-piece sample count in M03-I01 (F04) as a unit or tolerance. Escalate to authorized quality and engineering reviewers for requirement interpretation. |
| Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M03-I01 (F04), M03-I02 (F05), M03-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Evidence-validity issue | For Evidence-validity issue, state the calibration and correlation limitations exactly: M03-I03 (F06) places the gauge two days beyond its due date, and M03-I04 (F07) says no documented correlation to the in-calibration alternative exists. Mark instrument identity and any validity conclusion “Not supplied.” Do not substitute the second gauge retrospectively or declare measurements valid or invalid. Keep pending for authorized quality and metrology review. |
| Missing raw or trace fields | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Missing raw or trace fields. Evidence: M03-I02 (F05), M03-I03 (F06); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Permitted inference | Permitted inference: State the narrow inference the evidence permits and the adjacent conclusion it does not permit, keeping observation, measurement validity, cause, and disposition separate. No “Evaluate measurement evidence” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing inference boundary. Do not turn summarized readings, expired calibration, or an untested hypothesis into a final product or cause conclusion. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Prohibited inference or action | For Prohibited inference or action, state the narrow inference the evidence permits and the adjacent conclusion it does not permit, keeping observation, measurement validity, cause, and disposition separate. No “Evaluate measurement evidence” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing inference boundary. Never turn summarized readings, expired calibration, or an untested hypothesis into a final product or cause conclusion. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Reviewer | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Reviewer. Evidence: no direct “Evaluate measurement evidence” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M03-I04 (F07); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M03-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Evidence item | Supplied value | Units or tolerance | Source input ID | Evidence-validity issue | Missing raw or trace fields | Permitted inference | Prohibited inference or action | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Seven summarized bore readings and associated gauge-calibration status. | 24.06–24.11 mm across seven summarized readings (M03-I02, F05); individual readings are not supplied. | Millimeters; revision-F requirement 24.00 ± 0.05 mm (M03-I02, F05). | M03-I01 (F04); M03-I02 (F05); M03-I03 (F06); M03-I04 (F07) | Gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days, and no documented correlation to the in-calibration alternative exists (M03-I03, F06; M03-I04, F07). | Individual reading, unit/serial or sample position, timestamp, operator, instrument ID, method, environmental conditions, and correlation evidence are not supplied. | The summary reports values above the stated upper requirement, but measurement validity and individual trace are unresolved; record suspected nonconformance only. | Do not declare the entire lot nonconforming, accept/reject product, infer root cause, substitute a correlated result, or claim containment/disposition from this evidence. | Authorized supplier-quality and metrology reviewers determine measurement validity; the engineering/quality disposition owner decides product disposition only after that evidence review. Named assignments and decisions remain pending. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M03-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Evidence item | Supplied value | Units or tolerance | Source input ID | Evidence-validity issue | Missing raw or trace fields | Permitted inference | Prohibited inference or action | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Incomplete measurement-evidence packet. | Range supplied; individual values and trace not supplied. | Millimeter tolerance supplied; method and uncertainty not supplied. | M03-I04 (F07); M03-I03 (F06); M03-I02 (F05); M03-I01 (F04) | Expired-status gauge and absent correlation remain unresolved. | Raw data, sample trace, instrument ID, calibration/correlation evidence, operator/time, and method. | Only that a reviewable measurement concern exists. | No acceptance, rejection, cause, affected-scope, or disposition claim is authorized. | Authorized supplier-quality and metrology reviewers plus the engineering/quality disposition owner; individual assignments and decisions are not supplied. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M03-A02 · Measurement-system escalation request** — Produce a bounded, reviewable measurement-system escalation request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M03-I02 and address M03-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop confident lot disposition or retrospective gauge substitution while raw trace, calibration, or correlation evidence is unresolved. |
| **Go** | Proceed to qualified evidence review when all supplied values and absent records are explicitly separated. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate measurement-system validity and product disposition to authorized metrology, quality, and engineering owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Sample count, range, units, tolerance, calibration timing, and correlation gap are exact.
- [ ] All absent raw/trace/instrument fields are named.
- [ ] No gauge substitution, retest result, acceptance, or rejection is claimed.

### Artifact map

- **M03-A01 · Inspection-evidence review:** Produce a bounded, reviewable inspection-evidence review from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 7. Criteria: M03-EC01, M03-EC03, M03-EC04, M03-EC02. Scoped inputs: M03-I01, M03-I02, M03-I03, M03-I04.
- **M03-A02 · Measurement-system escalation request:** Produce a bounded, reviewable measurement-system escalation request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 1. Criteria: M03-EC02. Scoped inputs: M03-I02.

### Evidence criteria

- **M03-EC01:** Preserves the supplied sample count, seven-reading range, units, stated tolerance, and calibration dates while listing absent raw rows, instrument ID, operator, timestamp, and sample trace as evidence gaps
- **M03-EC02:** Does not replace approved sampling or retrospectively switch gauges
- **M03-EC03:** Explains why calibration and correlation uncertainty blocks confident product disposition
- **M03-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Module 4 — Write the nonconformance

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Prepare a suspected-nonconformance and containment decision record while the measurement-system validity question remains unresolved; do not declare product disposition, cause, or confirmed nonconformance.

**Deliverable:** A suspected-nonconformance report starter and affected-material trace gap map, both clearly marked pending authorized measurement-system and product review.

**Provided inputs**

- **M04-I01 · case-fact · F01:** The received lot contains 600 machined aluminum housings.
- **M04-I02 · case-fact · F02:** Drawing revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements.
- **M04-I03 · case-fact · F03:** The purchase order references revision F while the supplier traveler references revision E.
- **M04-I04 · case-fact · F04:** Incoming inspection sampled thirty-two pieces under plan QP-14.
- **M04-I05 · case-fact · F05:** Seven bore readings range from 24.06 to 24.11 millimeters against the revision-F requirement of 24.00 plus or minus 0.05 millimeters; individual reading rows and sample trace are not supplied.
- **M04-I06 · case-fact · F06:** The gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days.
- **M04-I07 · case-fact · F07:** No documented correlation exists between the expired-status gauge and the in-calibration alternative.
- **M04-I08 · case-fact · F08:** The material certificate omits temper and heat-lot traceability.
- **M04-I09 · case-fact · F09:** Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining.
- **M04-I10 · case-fact · F10:** Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved.
- **M04-I11 · case-fact · F12:** A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review.
- **M04-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M04-S01 · assignment-scope · F01, F02, F03, F04, F05, F06, F07, F08, F09, F10, F12:** Build a starter version of “A suspected-nonconformance report starter and affected-material trace gap map, both clearly marked pending authorized measurement-system and product review.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F03, F04, F05, F06, F07, F08, F09, F10, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M04-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F01–F10 and F12 supplied to the module; treat revision conflict, summarized readings, expired calibration, absent correlation, certificate omissions, line-stop prediction, and alternate seal as distinct evidence states.
- [ ] STOP “Write the nonconformance” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01–F10 and F12 supplied to the module; treat revision conflict, summarized readings, expired calibration, absent correlation, certificate omissions, line-stop prediction, and alternate seal as distinct evidence states. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Open the record as suspected nonconformance; do not declare product nonconforming while measurement validity and revision scope remain unresolved.
2. State lot quantity, sampled quantity, requirement, summarized range, revision conflict, calibration timing, certificate gap, and production-pressure fact with exact source IDs.
3. Separate observation, measurement-validity uncertainty, potential impact, cause hypothesis, containment request, and authorized disposition into distinct fields or linked rows.
4. Ask whether prior-lot and work-in-process material are affected; do not invent affected quantities or unit-level trace.
5. Route containment and disposition to authorized quality/engineering review; the alternate-seal idea remains unapproved and outside this record’s conclusion.
6. Final-QC confidence labels, evidence gaps, owner, status, and no cause, containment execution, product acceptance, rejection, or deviation claim.

### Field-by-field guidance — M04-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Record section | Use Record section to identify the reviewable part of the suspected-nonconformance record: observation, requirement/scope, measurement validity, impact/cause hypothesis, containment request, trace question, evidence need, or disposition. Cite M04-I01–M04-I11 only for the matching part; mark unsupported parts “Not supplied.” Do not merge observation with cause or disposition. Review: the quality owner and required specialist. |
| Observation | For Observation, record the supplied evidence without cause or disposition: M04-I05 (F05) supplies the seven-reading range, requirement, and missing individual trace, while M04-I01 (F01) supplies lot quantity when scope is stated separately. Mark any unit-level result “Not supplied.” Never convert the summarized evidence into a confirmed lot-wide nonconformance. Keep pending for the quality owner and measurement specialist. |
| Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M04-I01 (F01), M04-I03 (F03), M04-I04 (F04); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Confidence | For Confidence, copy the supplied label beside each cited input: M04-I01 confirmed, M04-I02 confirmed, M04-I03 conflicting, M04-I04 confirmed, M04-I05 confirmed, M04-I06 confirmed, M04-I07 unknown, M04-I08 confirmed, M04-I09 provisional, M04-I10 provisional, and M04-I11 confirmed. Retain those labels separately when a row combines evidence; do not collapse them into one overall confidence. Mark any statement without supplied metadata “Not supplied.” Never resolve or upgrade a label through repetition. Review: the quality owner and the specialist responsible for the evidence. |
| Requirement or scope | For Requirement or scope, identify the controlled requirement/configuration, observable evidence, measurement validity, affected-scope question, and pending quality disposition. Cite M04-I05 (F05), M04-I02 (F02); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing quality evidence. Never replace an approved plan, infer root cause, silently alter a record, or claim containment, acceptance, or effectiveness. Keep pending for the authorized technical or safety owner. |
| Measurement-validity uncertainty | For Measurement-validity uncertainty, record the overdue calibration from M04-I06 (F06) and absent gauge correlation from M04-I07 (F07), then identify instrument ID, uncertainty, and correlation evidence as “Not supplied.” Keep this separate from the measured range and product disposition. Do not declare the measurements valid or invalid or substitute another gauge retrospectively. Escalate to authorized quality and metrology reviewers. |
| Impact or cause hypothesis | Impact or cause hypothesis: Label each statement as observed fact, bounded impact, or learner hypothesis and describe the evidence that could confirm or refute it. No “Write the nonconformance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing reasoning boundary. Do not state causation, legal effect, product impact, blame, or affected scope from incomplete evidence. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Containment request | For Containment request, write a learner-proposed request that names the suspected lot, work-in-process, prior-lot, or location scope; hold, segregation, identification, and evidence-preservation steps; authorized owner; review trigger or duration; inspection and trace evidence needed; and documented release, extension, or disposition authority. M04-I01 (F01), M04-I04 (F04), M04-I05 (F05), M04-I07 (F07), and M04-I11 (F12) bound the questions but do not prove containment occurred. Authorized execution and release evidence are not supplied. Do not claim material was held, moved, reworked, rejected, or released. Keep execution and release pending for authorized quality review. |
| Trace or scope question | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Trace or scope question. Evidence: M04-I05 (F05), M04-I02 (F02); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Authorized disposition owner | Authorized disposition owner: Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M04-I11 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Evidence needed | For Evidence needed, state the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. No “Write the nonconformance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing gap discipline. Never hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Status. Evidence: M04-I07 (F07), M04-I10 (F10); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M04-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Record section | Observation | Source input ID | Confidence | Requirement or scope | Measurement-validity uncertainty | Impact or cause hypothesis | Containment request | Trace or scope question | Authorized disposition owner | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Suspected nonconformance — observation, requirement, measurement-validity uncertainty, affected-scope question, containment request, and pending disposition. | Seven summarized bore readings range 24.06–24.11 mm against 24.00 ± 0.05 mm; individual rows/sample trace are absent (M04-I05, F05). | M04-I01 (F01); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I04 (F04); M04-I05 (F05); M04-I06 (F06); M04-I09 (F09); M04-I02 (F02); M04-I07 (F07); M04-I08 (F08); M04-I10 (F10); M04-I11 (F12) | Retain the supplied labels separately: M04-I01 confirmed; M04-I02 confirmed; M04-I03 conflicting; M04-I04 confirmed; M04-I05 confirmed; M04-I06 confirmed; M04-I07 unknown; M04-I08 confirmed; M04-I09 provisional; M04-I10 provisional; M04-I11 confirmed. No overall confidence or resolved conflict is inferred. | Revision F controls bore, flatness, and material-certificate requirements; received lot contains 600 housings (M04-I02, F02; M04-I01, F01). Affected quantity is not determined. | Gauge was two days past calibration due date and no correlation to the in-calibration alternative is documented (M04-I06, F06; M04-I07, F07). | Unconfirmed — possible fit/line-stop impact and tool-use or other causes require valid measurement, trace, engineering review, and cause evidence; do not attribute cause. | Learner-proposed request — quality owner to define evidence-preserving hold/segregation and inspection path; no hold or segregation is claimed as performed. | Which units correspond to the seven readings, which gauge/operator/method were used, what lots share the condition, and what valid evidence defines affected scope? | Authorized quality disposition owner, with metrology review for measurement validity and engineering review for requirement and technical disposition; customer/regulatory review applies only if applicability is established. Assignment and decision remain pending. | Raw readings and sample trace; calibration/correlation evidence; material temper/heat lot; revision linkage; affected-scope review; authorized containment and disposition. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M04-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Record section | Observation | Source input ID | Confidence | Requirement or scope | Measurement-validity uncertainty | Impact or cause hypothesis | Containment request | Trace or scope question | Authorized disposition owner | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Suspected nonconformance remains incomplete — raw trace, valid measurement evidence, affected scope, containment decision, and disposition are missing. | Summary observation preserved; raw reading rows and trace not supplied. | M04-I11 (F12); M04-I10 (F10); M04-I08 (F08); M04-I07 (F07); M04-I02 (F02); M04-I09 (F09); M04-I06 (F06); M04-I05 (F05); M04-I04 (F04); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I01 (F01) | Retain the supplied labels separately: M04-I01 confirmed; M04-I02 confirmed; M04-I03 conflicting; M04-I04 confirmed; M04-I05 confirmed; M04-I06 confirmed; M04-I07 unknown; M04-I08 confirmed; M04-I09 provisional; M04-I10 provisional; M04-I11 confirmed. Missing raw trace, validity, scope, and disposition evidence remains unresolved. | Revision F/lot size supplied; affected unit scope not supplied. | Open — expired status and missing correlation. | No confirmed impact or cause; line-stop and alternate-seal statements remain provisional. | Not approved or executed — authorized response pending. | Unanswered — unit, lot, instrument, operator, method, and shared-process scope. | Authorized quality disposition owner plus metrology and engineering reviewers for the named validity and technical questions; individual assignments and decisions are not supplied. | Controlled requirement, raw trace, valid measurement evidence, affected scope, and disposition. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M04-A02 · Affected-material trace gap map** — Produce a bounded, reviewable affected-material trace gap map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I02, M04-I07, M04-I08 and address M04-EC01. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M04-A03 · Authorized product-review request** — Produce a bounded, reviewable authorized product-review request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M04-I10, M04-I11 and address M04-EC02, M04-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M04-A03 · Authorized product-review request

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Separates six decision layers so observation is not silently converted into measurement validity, causation, containment, or disposition.

| Decision | Evidence for | Evidence against | Options and tradeoffs | Decision owner | Required approval | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Learner proposal — apply this gate: Separates observation, measurement-validity uncertainty, impact hypothesis, cause hypothesis, containment request, and authorized disposition | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M04-I10: Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved. \| M04-I11: A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review. Applied control — Separates six decision layers so observation is not silently converted into measurement validity, causation, containment, or disposition. \| Source input IDs: M04-I10; M04-I11 | Requirement or scope: Revision F bore requirement applies; lot contains 600 housings, but sampled-unit trace and affected scope are not supplied. \| Containment request: Learner proposal: preserve records and request authorized hold/segregation decision; no containment execution claimed. \| Status: Open — suspected nonconformance; disposition not supplied | Hold and escalate while evidence is missing; or proceed only after the listed evidence and authorized approval are supplied. Holding protects the decision boundary but may delay work; proceeding early creates unsupported risk. No option was executed. | Authorized disposition owner: Authorized quality disposition role with engineering/measurement review; no decision recorded | Requirement or scope: Revision F bore requirement applies; lot contains 600 housings, but sampled-unit trace and affected scope are not supplied. \| Containment request: Learner proposal: preserve records and request authorized hold/segregation decision; no containment execution claimed. \| Status: Open — suspected nonconformance; disposition not supplied | Open — suspected nonconformance; disposition not supplied |

#### M04-A01 · Suspected-nonconformance report

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC03

**Why this row is included:** Keeps prior-lot and work-in-process exposure visible as review questions and avoids inventing affected quantities.

| Record section | Observation | Source input ID | Confidence | Requirement or scope | Measurement-validity uncertainty | Impact or cause hypothesis | Containment request | Trace or scope question | Authorized disposition owner | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Affected-scope questions | A prior lot had borderline bore results accepted without trend review; production reports ninety pieces remaining before a predicted line stop. | M04-I09 (F09); M04-I11 (F12) | Supplied context only; affected quantities and linkage are not confirmed | Determine whether prior-lot, current lot, work-in-process, stock, or shipped product shares the relevant revision, tool, process, and measurement condition. | Current and prior measurement-system comparability is not supplied. | Prior trend and work-in-process exposure are questions, not confirmed nonconforming scope or cause. | Learner proposal: ask authorized quality/operations owners whether preservation, identification, segregation, or review is required; no action claimed. | What exact lots, serials, operations, locations, and dispositions link to the current evidence? | Authorized quality disposition owner with operations and engineering input | Prior-lot trend record, work-in-process trace, inventory/shipment status, process history, and authorized scope determination | Open question — affected scope not supplied |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop definitive nonconformance, cause, affected-quantity, containment-complete, acceptance, rejection, or deviation claims while measurement and trace evidence are unresolved. |
| **Go** | Proceed to authorized review when observations, uncertainties, hypotheses, requests, and disposition authority are separated and cited. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate measurement validity, revision scope, traceability, containment, and disposition to qualified quality/metrology/engineering owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Requirement, range, sample/lot quantities, revision conflict, certificate gap, calibration status, and containment question are visible.
- [ ] Observation, uncertainty, hypothesis, request, and disposition remain distinct.
- [ ] No unit trace, affected quantity, cause, disposition, or execution is invented.

### Artifact map

- **M04-A01 · Suspected-nonconformance report:** Produce a bounded, reviewable suspected-nonconformance report from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 9. Criteria: M04-EC01, M04-EC03. Scoped inputs: M04-I01, M04-I03, M04-I04, M04-I05, M04-I06, M04-I09, M04-I02, M04-I07, M04-I08, M04-I10, M04-I11.
- **M04-A02 · Affected-material trace gap map:** Produce a bounded, reviewable affected-material trace gap map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 2. Criteria: M04-EC01. Scoped inputs: M04-I02, M04-I07, M04-I08.
- **M04-A03 · Authorized product-review request:** Produce a bounded, reviewable authorized product-review request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 1. Criteria: M04-EC02, M04-EC03. Scoped inputs: M04-I10, M04-I11.

### Evidence criteria

- **M04-EC01:** States the controlled requirement, supplied result range, sampled quantity, lot quantity, revision conflict, certificate gap, and current containment question without inventing unit-level trace
- **M04-EC02:** Separates observation, measurement-validity uncertainty, impact hypothesis, cause hypothesis, containment request, and authorized disposition
- **M04-EC03:** Identifies prior-lot and work-in-process scope as questions for authorized review rather than confirmed affected quantities

### Module 5 — Challenge corrective action

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Test whether the proposed root cause explains the failure and whether controls prevent recurrence.

**Deliverable:** A corrective-action review with evidence requests and effectiveness plan.

**Provided inputs**

- **M05-I01 · case-fact · F06:** The gauge calibration due date preceded inspection by two days.
- **M05-I02 · case-fact · F07:** No documented correlation exists between the expired-status gauge and the in-calibration alternative.
- **M05-I03 · case-fact · F11:** The supplier names operator training as root cause while maintenance evidence shows extended tool use.
- **M05-I04 · case-fact · F12:** A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review.
- **M05-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M05-S01 · assignment-scope · F06, F07, F11, F12:** Build a starter version of “A corrective-action review with evidence requests and effectiveness plan.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F06, F07, F11, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M05-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F06, F07, F11, and F12; treat operator-training and extended-tool-use explanations as conflicting hypotheses, and treat gauge-correlation and prior-trend evidence as unresolved.
- [ ] STOP “Challenge corrective action” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F06, F07, F11, and F12; treat operator-training and extended-tool-use explanations as conflicting hypotheses, and treat gauge-correlation and prior-trend evidence as unresolved. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Separate immediate correction, containment, occurrence-cause hypothesis, escape-cause hypothesis, systemic action, and effectiveness evidence into independent checks.
2. Define occurrence cause as why the nonconforming condition was created; define escape cause as why the planned control failed to detect or contain it before the relevant decision.
3. Use F11 to compare the supplier’s operator-training hypothesis with extended-tool-use maintenance evidence; neither is confirmed root cause.
4. Use F06/F07/F12 to test the possible escape path: overdue calibration, no documented gauge correlation, and an earlier borderline-lot trend not reviewed.
5. Do not force both cause types when evidence supports only one; mark unsupported mechanisms not supplied and request authorized investigation evidence.
6. Predeclare a measurable effectiveness window, sample/evidence source, failure response, and closure owner as learner proposals; results remain pending.
7. Final-QC each check for evidence required, source, owner, pending result, exception, and no root-cause or effectiveness claim.

### Field-by-field guidance — M05-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Check ID | Check ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. No “Challenge corrective action” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Corrective-action layer | For Corrective-action layer, label the row as correction, containment, occurrence cause, escape cause, systemic action, or effectiveness review, and require evidence appropriate to that layer. M05-I03 (F11) supports a conflicting occurrence-cause review; M05-I01 (F06), M05-I02 (F07), and M05-I04 (F12) inform escape review. Mark unsupplied actions or results “Not supplied.” Never collapse layers or claim closure. Keep pending for authorized quality review. |
| Evidence required | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Evidence required. Evidence: M05-I03 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M05-I01 (F06), M05-I03 (F11), M05-I04 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Hypothesis or claim | For Hypothesis or claim, preserve the supplier's operator-training claim and contrary extended-tool-use evidence from M05-I03 (F11) as conflicting, then name the records needed to confirm or refute each explanation. Mark root cause “Not supplied.” Never convert either statement into proven causation, blame, or closure. Keep pending for the authorized supplier-quality and process owners. |
| Occurrence-versus-escape classification | Separate the condition that may have created the issue from the control failure that may have allowed it through, and cite evidence for each side independently for Occurrence-versus-escape classification. Evidence: no direct “Challenge corrective action” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not reuse one convenient explanation for both occurrence and escape or present either classification as confirmed. Escalate to the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Owner | Owner: Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M05-I04 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Predeclared effectiveness test | For Predeclared effectiveness test, define the future sample or population, valid measurement method, time or lot window, threshold, owner, and failure response before action begins. No “Challenge corrective action” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing effectiveness-test design. Never write a result, closure, or effectiveness claim before the test is authorized and run. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Result | For Result, record “Not run” or “Not supplied” and keep status pending review until the predeclared effectiveness test has been authorized and executed, then require the actual sample, valid method, window, threshold comparison, and exception record. No direct “Challenge corrective action” source fact supplies an effectiveness result. Do not use M05-I04 (F12) prior-lot history as a new test result or claim effectiveness. Escalate to the authorized quality owner. |
| Exception or gap | Exception or gap: State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. No “Challenge corrective action” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing gap discipline. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Closure status | For Closure status, select open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied and list the unresolved cause, action, implementation, effectiveness, and authority records. No direct “Challenge corrective action” source fact supplies closure; M05-I02 (F07) is a measurement-correlation gap, not a closure decision. Never mark accepted, effective, or closed without the corresponding evidence and authorized record. Keep pending for the corrective-action owner and quality closure authority. |

### Completed supported example — M05-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Check ID | Corrective-action layer | Evidence required | Source input ID | Hypothesis or claim | Occurrence-versus-escape classification | Owner | Predeclared effectiveness test | Result | Exception or gap | Closure status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A01-EX-01 | Cause review — supplier's operator-training claim conflicts with maintenance evidence of extended tool use (M05-I03, F11); the layer remains hypothesis review, not accepted root cause. | Tool-life/maintenance records, operator/training records, process history, raw measurement trace, gauge validity/correlation, and prior-lot trend evidence. | M05-I01 (F06); M05-I03 (F11); M05-I04 (F12); M05-I02 (F07) | Supplier claim: operator training is root cause. Contrary evidence: extended tool use. Status: conflicting and unconfirmed (M05-I03, F11). | Learner-proposed internal split — occurrence hypothesis: extended tool use/process control; escape hypotheses: expired-status gauge, absent correlation, and prior borderline results accepted without trend review (M05-I01, M05-I02, M05-I04). Neither side is confirmed. | Authorized supplier-quality corrective-action owner, with process/engineering ownership for occurrence cause and metrology/quality-system ownership for escape and effectiveness review. Assignment, action, and decision remain pending. | Before action, define sample/population, valid measurement system, time or lot window, acceptance threshold, trend review, owner, and failure response; all values and results are not supplied. | Not run — no corrective action, verification sample, effectiveness window, or result is supplied. | Cause evidence, measurement validity, occurrence/escape review, action approval, effectiveness design, and closure evidence remain open. | Blocked — root cause, action, implementation, effectiveness, and authorized closure are not established. |

### Completed known-gap example — M05-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Check ID | Corrective-action layer | Evidence required | Source input ID | Hypothesis or claim | Occurrence-versus-escape classification | Owner | Predeclared effectiveness test | Result | Exception or gap | Closure status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A01-GAP-01 | Root-cause layer incomplete; correction, systemic action, and effectiveness layers not supplied. | Missing controlled tool-use, training, process, measurement, and trend records. | M05-I02 (F07); M05-I04 (F12); M05-I03 (F11); M05-I01 (F06) | Conflicting — operator-training claim versus extended-tool-use evidence. | Not confirmed — separate evidence for occurrence and escape is missing. | Authorized supplier-quality corrective-action owner plus process/engineering and metrology/quality-system reviewers for the named layers; individual assignments and decisions are not supplied. | Not supplied — population, window, valid method, threshold, owner, and reaction plan. | Not supplied because no test was authorized or run. | All cause/action/effectiveness approvals and evidence remain pending. | Open; no closure decision is supplied. |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M05-A02 · Effectiveness-test plan** — Produce a bounded, reviewable effectiveness-test plan from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M05-I02 and address M05-EC02, M05-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M05-A02 · Effectiveness-test plan

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M05-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Challenges the convenient retraining claim against all supplied contrary evidence while keeping occurrence/escape labels as a reviewable internal convention.

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Effectiveness-test plan — Reconciles retraining claims with maintenance and prior-trend evidence | Trigger: receipt of the cited module input or an authorized review request; execution date not supplied. | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M05-I02: No documented correlation exists between the expired-status gauge and the in-calibration alternative. Applied control — Challenges the convenient retraining claim against all supplied contrary evidence while keeping occurrence/escape labels as a reviewable internal convention. \| Source input IDs: M05-I02 | Owner: Authorized supplier-quality corrective-action owner with maintenance, process, and measurement reviewers | Gate: Reconciles retraining claims with maintenance and prior-trend evidence; threshold or acceptance remains pending authorized definition where not supplied. | Occurrence-versus-escape classification: Internal learner convention pending authorized review: occurrence hypotheses include tool/process or operator factors; escape hypotheses include overdue gauge status and missed prior trend. Classification is not a root-cause finding. \| Result: Not supplied — no corrective action or effectiveness test is claimed complete | Open — root cause and systemic coverage not demonstrated |

#### M05-A01 · Corrective-action review

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M05-EC03

**Why this row is included:** Makes the effectiveness window, evidence, exceptions, and closure owner explicit before testing, without manufacturing a pass result.

| Check ID | Corrective-action layer | Evidence required | Source input ID | Hypothesis or claim | Occurrence-versus-escape classification | Owner | Predeclared effectiveness test | Result | Exception or gap | Closure status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS-PLAN-01 | Effectiveness verification plan | Authorized action definition, controlled start date, eligible production or lot count, raw results, recurrence/escape criteria, exceptions, and reviewer signoff | M05-I01 (F06); M05-I02 (F07); M05-I03 (F12); M05-I04 (F11) | Learner proposal: corrective action must address the authorized cause and escape mechanisms before effectiveness can be evaluated. | Evaluate occurrence and escape controls separately; authorized classification remains pending. | Closure owner field: authorized supplier-quality owner; named person not supplied | Before execution, approve a window stated as eligible lots or time plus minimum evidence volume, zero severe recurrence rule, trend method, and response to any exception; exact values not supplied. | Not supplied — window has not started and no result is inferred | Baseline, approved thresholds, start date, eligible volume, and closure authority are not supplied. | Open — measurable plan and owner approval pending |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop root-cause acceptance or corrective-action closure when occurrence, escape, systemic action, or effectiveness evidence is missing or contradictory. |
| **Go** | Proceed to review when hypotheses are evidence-linked, cause types are not conflated, and the effectiveness test is predeclared. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate causal mechanism to quality/engineering, measurement escape to metrology, and closure authority to the designated quality owner. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Correction, containment, occurrence cause, escape cause, systemic action, and effectiveness are separately inspectable.
- [ ] F06/F07/F11/F12 retain confidence and no hypothesis is upgraded to fact.
- [ ] Closure, result, and approval remain pending.

### Artifact map

- **M05-A01 · Corrective-action review:** Produce a bounded, reviewable corrective-action review from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 8. Criteria: M05-EC01, M05-EC04, M05-EC03. Scoped inputs: M05-I01, M05-I03, M05-I04, M05-I02.
- **M05-A02 · Effectiveness-test plan:** Produce a bounded, reviewable effectiveness-test plan from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 2. Criteria: M05-EC02, M05-EC03. Scoped inputs: M05-I02.

### Evidence criteria

- **M05-EC01:** Distinguishes immediate correction, containment, cause, systemic action, and effectiveness
- **M05-EC02:** Reconciles retraining claims with maintenance and prior-trend evidence
- **M05-EC03:** Predeclares a measurable effectiveness window and closure owner
- **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Module 6 — Control change and performance

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

Route the alternate-seal idea and update scorecard treatment without hiding the severe event.

**Deliverable:** A supplier-change request, deviation workflow, and scorecard event record.

**Provided inputs**

- **M06-I01 · case-fact · F09:** Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining.
- **M06-I02 · case-fact · F10:** Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved.
- **M06-I03 · case-fact · F12:** A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review.
- **M06-B01 · case-brief · CB01:** Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
- **M06-S01 · assignment-scope · F09, F10, F12:** Build a starter version of “A supplier-change request, deviation workflow, and scorecard event record.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

**Completion boundary**

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F09, F10, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

**Workbook plan:** M06-WP01 · 2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F09, F10, and F12; keep the predicted line stop, proposed alternate seal, absent deviation/validation, and prior-lot trend gap separate.
- [ ] STOP “Control change and performance” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F09, F10, and F12; keep the predicted line stop, proposed alternate seal, absent deviation/validation, and prior-lot trend gap separate. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized supplier-quality owner, with engineering, metrology, operations, customer, or regulatory review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Open an unapproved supplier-change request for the alternate-seal idea and cite its provisional status.
2. State the business-pressure facts separately from technical acceptance, customer, regulatory, and configuration authority.
3. List design intent, affected configuration, verification/validation, customer/regulatory review, traceability, implementation, and rollback evidence as not supplied.
4. Require authorized technical, quality, customer, regulatory, and configuration review before any use.
5. Create a linked learner-proposed scorecard event that remains outside normalized averages until corrective-action status is resolved.
6. Final-QC no use, deviation, validation, line-stop outcome, approval, implementation, or performance result is claimed.

### Field-by-field guidance — M06-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Change ID | Change ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. No “Control change and performance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Proposed change | For Proposed change, describe the requested configuration change in bounded terms, including what would change and what would explicitly remain unchanged. No “Control change and performance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing bounded change request. Never treat the alternate-seal idea or line-stop pressure as an approved engineering change. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Supported business context | For Supported business context, preserve the provisional line-stop prediction and ninety-piece count from M06-I01 (F09) as urgency context, then mark validated impact evidence “Not supplied.” Keep business pressure separate from technical acceptance and change authority. Do not convert the prediction into a verified outcome or approval basis. Escalate to operations for impact validation and to authorized engineering/quality owners for change decisions. |
| Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M06-I01 (F09), M06-I03 (F12), M06-I02 (F10); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Affected configuration | For Affected configuration, identify the controlled requirement/configuration, observable evidence, measurement validity, affected-scope question, and pending quality disposition. No “Control change and performance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing quality evidence. Never replace an approved plan, infer root cause, silently alter a record, or claim containment, acceptance, or effectiveness. Keep pending for the authorized technical or safety owner. |
| Technical or validation evidence | For Technical or validation evidence, list the controlled alternate-seal change description, fit/function/safety/regulatory validation plan, approved acceptance criteria, test data, result, and configuration trace required to evaluate M06-I02 (F10). Every validation record and approval is “Not supplied”; the engineering belief is context only. Do not treat the concept as equivalence, deviation, or validated change. Escalate to authorized engineering, quality, safety, and regulatory reviewers as applicable. |
| Customer or regulatory review | For Customer or regulatory review, identify the applicability decision, notification or submission requirement, acceptance authority, and evidence needed before change approval. No direct “Control change and performance” source fact supplies customer or regulatory applicability; mark each element “Not supplied.” Do not cite M06-I03 (F12) prior-trend history as customer/regulatory evidence or imply notification or approval occurred. Review: authorized quality, customer, and regulatory roles as applicable. |
| Implementation or rollback evidence | For Implementation or rollback evidence, list the preapproved implementation record, verification evidence, rollback trigger, rollback method, and preservation record that would be required after authorization. No “Control change and performance” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing implementation and rollback evidence. Never claim the change was implemented, validated, or rolled back when this exercise supplies no execution record. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |
| Decision owner | For Decision owner, name the authorized configuration/change role and the required engineering, quality, customer, or regulatory reviewer for the proposed scope, then leave assignment and decision “Not supplied” unless evidenced. No direct “Control change and performance” source fact supplies delegated authority. Do not infer authority from urgency, job title, or prior-lot history. Escalate to the quality-system and engineering change owners. |
| Linked severe-event or scorecard status | For Linked severe-event or scorecard status, preserve the prior-lot trend-review gap from M06-I03 (F12), state its review status, and keep it visible outside any average until disposition evidence exists. Mark severity and closure “Not supplied.” Do not cite M06-I02 (F10) alternate-seal evidence as the trend event or claim the event is closed. Review: the supplier-quality performance and disposition owners. |
| Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M06-I02 (F10); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the quality owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M06-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Change ID | Proposed change | Supported business context | Source input ID | Affected configuration | Technical or validation evidence | Customer or regulatory review | Implementation or rollback evidence | Decision owner | Linked severe-event or scorecard status | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M06-A01-EX-01 | Alternate-seal concept raised by engineering; exact part/configuration change is not supplied and no deviation or validation is approved (M06-I02, F10). | Production predicts a line stop tomorrow with ninety pieces remaining (M06-I01, F09); this is urgency context, not technical approval. | M06-I01 (F09); M06-I03 (F12); M06-I02 (F10) | Not supplied — part/assembly identifiers, drawings/BOMs, revisions, tooling, inspection plan, and downstream interfaces. | Not supplied — fit/function/safety/regulatory validation and approved acceptance criteria for the alternate seal. | Pending/unknown — applicability, notification, submission, and approval evidence are not supplied. | Not supplied — approved implementation record, traceability, verification, rollback trigger/method, and preserved prechange state; no change is claimed as implemented. | Authorized configuration/change owner with engineering and quality approval authority; customer/regulatory review applies only after applicability is determined, and the implementation owner remains pending. No decision is claimed. | Prior borderline bore results lacked trend review (M06-I03, F12); linked trend/severity treatment is open, not closed. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M06-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Change ID | Proposed change | Supported business context | Source input ID | Affected configuration | Technical or validation evidence | Customer or regulatory review | Implementation or rollback evidence | Decision owner | Linked severe-event or scorecard status | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M06-A01-GAP-01 | Concept only — no controlled change description or initiating authority. | Line-stop prediction and ninety-piece count supplied; validated business/quality impact not supplied. | M06-I02 (F10); M06-I03 (F12); M06-I01 (F09) | Not supplied — controlled configuration and trace scope. | Not supplied — authorized plan, data, criteria, and result. | Not supplied — applicability decision or approval. | Not supplied — no execution or rollback record. | Authorized configuration/change owner plus engineering and quality reviewers; customer/regulatory roles depend on an applicability decision. Individual assignments and decisions are not supplied. | Open — prior trend-review gap lacks disposition. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M06-A02 · Deviation workflow** — Produce a bounded, reviewable deviation workflow from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I02 and address M06-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M06-A03 · Supplier scorecard event** — Produce a bounded, reviewable supplier scorecard event from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M06-I03 and address M06-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M06-A02 · Deviation workflow

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M06-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Preserves the real line-stop pressure while cleanly separating it from technical, customer, regulatory, and product-acceptance authority.

| Element | From or trigger | To or outcome | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Open question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Deviation workflow control for M06-EC02 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M06-I02: Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved. Applied control — Preserves the real line-stop pressure while cleanly separating it from technical, customer, regulatory, and product-acceptance authority. \| Source input IDs: M06-I02 | Pending authorized decision that satisfies: Separates urgent business impact from product-acceptance authority; no outcome is claimed. | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M06-I02: Engineering believes an alternate seal may work but no deviation or validation is approved. Applied control — Preserves the real line-stop pressure while cleanly separating it from technical, customer, regulatory, and product-acceptance authority. \| Source input IDs: M06-I02 | Decision owner: Authorized product-acceptance/change authority; urgency owner and production requester do not replace that authority | Affected configuration: Not supplied; exact part, revision, lots, work-in-process, and customer/regulatory scope require trace review. \| Customer or regulatory review: Not supplied; qualified applicability and approval review pending. \| Implementation or rollback evidence: Not supplied; no implementation, trial, acceptance, or rollback claimed. \| Status: Blocked — urgent request, technical acceptance pending | Blocked — urgent request, technical acceptance pending |

#### M06-A03 · Supplier scorecard event

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M06-EC03

**Why this row is included:** Prevents a severe or unresolved event from disappearing inside averages and keeps every corrective-action state auditable.

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M06-A03-M06-EC03-EX01 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M06-I03: A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review. Applied control — Prevents a severe or unresolved event from disappearing inside averages and keeps every corrective-action state auditable. | M06-I03 | Shows the event and corrective-action status outside normalized averages. Learner-applied control: Prevents a severe or unresolved event from disappearing inside averages and keeps every corrective-action state auditable. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Decision owner: Authorized supplier-quality/change owner | Supported business context: A prior lot's borderline bore results were accepted without trend review; current corrective-action and change outcomes are not supplied. \| Affected configuration: Not supplied; prior/current lot, process, tool, and measurement linkage require authorized trace review. \| Technical or validation evidence: Not supplied; do not treat absence of a new average-rate signal as closure. \| Customer or regulatory review: Not supplied; applicability must be determined by qualified reviewers. \| Implementation or rollback evidence: Not supplied — no action or effectiveness result recorded. | Open — severe event and corrective-action status visible separately |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop alternate-seal use or change approval when requirement, validation, customer/regulatory, configuration, traceability, or rollback evidence is absent. |
| **Go** | Proceed to multidisciplinary review when business pressure, technical proposal, evidence plan, and decision authorities are separate. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate product/change authority to engineering/quality/configuration and customer/regulatory questions to qualified owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Business urgency and product-acceptance authority are separate.
- [ ] Technical/customer/regulatory/configuration evidence gates are explicit.
- [ ] Severe event visibility is preserved; no change, validation, deviation, or score result is invented.

### Artifact map

- **M06-A01 · Supplier-change request:** Produce a bounded, reviewable supplier-change request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 4. Criteria: M06-EC01, M06-EC04. Scoped inputs: M06-I01, M06-I03, M06-I02.
- **M06-A02 · Deviation workflow:** Produce a bounded, reviewable deviation workflow from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 2. Criteria: M06-EC02. Scoped inputs: M06-I02.
- **M06-A03 · Supplier scorecard event:** Produce a bounded, reviewable supplier scorecard event from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Expected rows: 1. Criteria: M06-EC03. Scoped inputs: M06-I03.

### Evidence criteria

- **M06-EC01:** Requires technical, customer, regulatory, and configuration review before use
- **M06-EC02:** Separates urgent business impact from product-acceptance authority
- **M06-EC03:** Shows the event and corrective-action status outside normalized averages
- **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

## Ambiguities to preserve

### Recorded measurements are out of tolerance, but the instrument's calibration status undermines confidence in the exact results.

**Judgment required:** Contain affected material and obtain qualified measurement and quality direction before resampling or disposition.

**Do not assume:** Do not conclude that the lot conforms, fails, or can be averaged into acceptance from uncertain evidence.

### Operator retraining may be useful, but tool-life and prior trend records suggest a broader control failure.

**Judgment required:** Ask what causal evidence would distinguish operator, maintenance, method, management-system, or combined causes.

**Do not assume:** Do not accept the first plausible cause or close the action because a form was submitted.

## Debrief guide

There is no universal disposition or corrective action from this packet. Strong work preserves traceability, measurement limits, authority, and evidence needed for a qualified decision.

### Module 1

Document conflict can change the meaning of every downstream result. The active requirement must be established without erasing the supplier's revision error or original evidence.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Revision and effective-date matrix
- Preserved obsolete-document finding

### Module 2

Criticality follows potential impact and controlled requirements, not inspection frequency. The learner should label impact hypotheses and seek authorized technical confirmation.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Requirement-to-impact trace
- Defined owner and reaction plan

### Module 3

Sampling counts do not rescue an uncertain measurement system. A qualified owner must decide whether and how additional evidence can support disposition.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Raw result and instrument trace
- Measurement-system decision request

### Module 4

The nonconformance should be factual and bounded. It can identify potential affected scope without declaring root cause, blame, acceptance, or regulatory status.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Requirement-versus-result statement
- Lot and prior-record traceability

### Module 5

Retraining is not a root cause by itself. A strong review tests why the tool-life control and earlier trend did not trigger action and verifies effectiveness later.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Causal evidence chain
- Predeclared effectiveness criteria

### Module 6

Schedule pressure does not authorize an alternate design or deviation. Supplier scoring should preserve the severe event and buyer-caused context without substituting for disposition.

**Strong evidence may include**

- Controlled change and deviation route
- Transparent severe-event scorecard record

## Specialist escalation boundaries

### Product disposition, alternate seal, deviation, measurement-system adequacy, sampling, safety, customer, or regulatory impact

**Route to:** Authorized engineering, quality, metrology, customer, and regulatory specialists

**Learner boundary:** The learner documents and routes evidence but cannot accept, reject, rework, or deviate product.

### Supplier liability, contract recovery, customer communication, or legally significant quality representation

**Route to:** Authorized procurement, commercial, legal, insurance, and executive owners

**Learner boundary:** Training does not determine contractual rights, fault, or required disclosure.

## Use of the self-review rubric

Use the accompanying rubric to inspect the work, identify revisions, and prepare questions. It is formative guidance only—not a grade, verified completion, credential assessment, professional approval, or substitute for a qualified reviewer.