Change Control Detail

Category	Documentation / Administrative	Requested By	H. Lindgren (Doc Control)
Date Submitted	Jun 8, 2026	Date Decided	Jun 15, 2026
Approval Authority	Acme Internal (Tier 1) — C. Tyrrell

Description: A drawing reference number in the part marking specification pointed to a superseded engineering revision letter. No change to the physical marking requirement — the correction is purely to the document reference.

Justification: Caught during a routine document-control audit; left uncorrected, it risked confusion for future engineering changes referencing the wrong baseline revision.

Impact: None to cost, schedule, or the physical part.

Approved

Category	Documentation / Administrative	Requested By	R. Kessler (Quality Eng. Lead)
Date Submitted	Aug 2, 2026	Date Decided	Aug 9, 2026
Approval Authority	Acme Internal (Tier 1) — R. Kessler

Description: First Article Inspection found the edge-trim tolerance callout ambiguous between two adjacent drawing views (top view vs. section view showed the tolerance zone slightly differently). Wording clarified; the actual tolerance value did not change.

Justification: Ambiguous callouts risk inconsistent interpretation between inspectors on different shifts.

Impact: None to cost or schedule. Directly informed the standard used at First Article Inspection.

Approved

Category	Documentation / Administrative	Requested By	R. Kessler (Quality Eng. Lead)
Date Submitted	Aug 12, 2026	Date Decided	Aug 19, 2026
Approval Authority	Acme Internal (Tier 1) — R. Kessler

Description: The customer source-inspection auditor flagged 2 acceptance criteria on the FAI checklist as ambiguous (see RAIDD Issue I-04). The checklist was revised with unambiguous pass/fail criteria and re-issued for all subsequent article runs.

Justification: Ambiguous acceptance criteria risk inconsistent FAI results across future units.

Impact: None to cost or schedule. See RAIDD Issue I-04 for the originating finding.

Approved

Category	Schedule / Resource	Requested By	C. Tyrrell (Program Manager)
Date Submitted	Sep 21, 2026	Date Decided	Sep 28, 2026
Approval Authority	Executive Sponsor (Tier 2) — G. Talmadge

Description: Formalized the correction of the delivery team from a 14-person, single-shift estimate to a 25-person, two-shift team into the program's standing resource and schedule baseline, ahead of Phase 2 production ramp.

Justification: The original staffing estimate was insufficient to run real steady-state two-shift production — see RAIDD Risk R-07 and Decision D-05 for the full record.

Impact: Program budget corrected from $3,500,000 to $5,200,000. See the Resource Plan and Program Budget for full detail.

Approved

Category	Engineering Change (ECN)	Requested By	L. Vance (Materials/NDT Eng.)
Date Submitted	Sep 25, 2026	Date Decided	Oct 7, 2026
Approval Authority	Meridian Program Office (Tier 3)

Description: Added immersion ultrasonic testing as a Meridian-approved alternate inspection method to contact UT on the engineering drawing's NDT callout, with no change to acceptance criteria.

Justification: Supports the corrected two-shift NDT staffing model (2 Level II technicians) with a method better suited to sustained two-shift throughput; addresses the NDT queue backlog recorded in RAIDD Issue I-02.

Impact: No change to cost or acceptance criteria. Requires Meridian approval since NDT method is a drawing callout, not an internal Acme process choice.

Approved

Category	Process / Tooling	Requested By	M. Osei (Manufacturing Eng.)
Date Submitted	Dec 2, 2026	Date Decided	Dec 11, 2026
Approval Authority	Acme Internal (Tier 2) — Program Review Board

Description: Root cause corrective action following MRB-004 (ply misalignment traced to layup fixture wear) — added a standing preventive-maintenance schedule for the fixture. No change to the part or its acceptance criteria.

Justification: Prevents recurrence of the same root cause on future production runs. See the Material Review Board log for MRB-004.

Impact: Minor recurring maintenance cost, absorbed within existing tooling/maintenance budget lines — no baseline change.

Approved

Category	Engineering Change (ECN)	Requested By	R. Kessler (Quality Eng. Lead)
Date Submitted	Dec 15, 2026	Date Decided	Jan 5, 2027
Approval Authority	Meridian Program Office (Tier 3)

Description: Formalized the rework disposition already used in MRB-001 and MRB-003 into a standing repair-limits table on the engineering drawing, so future oversized-fastener-hole findings within the approved range don't each require a fresh MRB rework disposition.

Justification: Reduces repeat MRB cycle time for a known, bounded, already-precedented finding. See the Material Review Board log for MRB-001 and MRB-003.

Impact: No cost impact; reduces future MRB cycle time for this specific finding type. Requires Meridian approval since it changes the accepted repair envelope on the engineering drawing.

Approved

Category	Supplier / Material	Requested By	S. Pham (Supplier Quality Eng.)
Date Submitted	Oct 28, 2026	Date Decided	Nov 19, 2026
Approval Authority	Meridian Program Office (Tier 3)

Description: Added a second qualified supplier to the engineering drawing's approved-source list for the primary composite prepreg material.

Justification: Closes out the single-source schedule exposure recorded as RAIDD Risk R-01 (score 9, High/High) — see RAIDD Decision D-03 for the full record.

Impact: No change to the current program budget; qualification cost was scoped separately. Requires Meridian approval since the approved-source list is part of the engineering drawing baseline.

Approved

Category	Quality / Material Review	Requested By	C. Okwuosa (Production, Shift 2)
Date Submitted	Dec 4, 2026	Date Decided	Dec 14, 2026
Approval Authority	Meridian Program Office (Tier 1) — declined

Description: Requested a one-time deviation permitting delivery of eleven panels showing ultrasonic porosity indications marginally above the drawing's acceptance limit, to protect the December delivery slot.

Justification as submitted: Rework routes the panels through a four-week cure and inspection cycle and forfeits the slot. The indications are marginal and localized away from the primary load path.

Impact: Approving would have held the delivery slot and avoided roughly $310,000 of rework. It would also have delivered primary structure outside the substantiated allowable.

Basis of decision: The porosity limit on this drawing is not an inspection convention; it is a design allowable tied to the stress substantiation Meridian certified against. Accepting a deviation on primary structure without re-substantiation does not waive an inspection — it silently changes what the part is qualified to carry, and moves that question onto the customer's certification basis. A deviation is not a shortcut around an allowable; it is a request to change what the part is qualified to do. The MRB rework route was authorized instead and the slot was renegotiated.

Conditions for re-raise: Re-raisable only with stress re-substantiation for the as-built condition, endorsed by Meridian engineering. A commercial argument alone will be declined again.

Declined

Category	Quality / Process	Requested By	R. Kessler (Engineering)
Date Submitted	Jan 9, 2027	Date Decided	Jan 20, 2027
Approval Authority	Quality Assurance + Meridian Program Office — declined

Description: Requested that the FAI dimensional verification move from 100% of characteristics to an AQL sampling plan, to reduce first-article cycle time by an estimated nine days per configuration.

Justification as submitted: The dimensional inspection load on a 412-characteristic ballooned drawing is the largest single contributor to first-article cycle time, and the process has demonstrated capability.

Impact: Approving would have recovered roughly nine days per configuration across three remaining configurations. It would also have left an unknown subset of characteristics unverified at first article.

Basis of decision: AS9102 first article inspection exists precisely to verify every characteristic once, on the first part produced by the production process, before capability has been demonstrated on that process. Sampling assumes the stable process that the FAI is the instrument for establishing. An FAI you sample is not a first article inspection; it is a first article estimate. Cycle time was addressed instead by parallelizing CMM programming with tooling proveout, recovering four of the nine days.

Conditions for re-raise: Re-raise for delta FAI on configuration changes, where prior full verification exists and AS9102 already permits a reduced scope. Full-FAI sampling is not re-raisable.

Declined

Category	Capital / Process	Requested By	S. Pham (Supplier Quality Eng.)
Date Submitted	Feb 2, 2027	Date Decided	Feb 16, 2027
Approval Authority	Meridian Program Office (Tier 3) — deferred

Description: Requested capital funding for an automated immersion ultrasonic scanning cell to replace manual hand-scan NDT on composite panels.

Justification as submitted: Manual scanning is the inspection bottleneck and carries operator-to-operator variability that shows up as re-scan volume.

Impact: The technical case is accepted. The cell requires capital approval outside program authority, and NADCAP qualification of the new process would complete after the current build concludes.

Basis of decision: Deferred on timing, not merit. The cell would not be qualified in time to inspect any panel on this contract, so its benefit accrues entirely to follow-on work while its disruption lands on this one. Deferring a good request is not the same as declining it — the business case was written up and handed to the capital planning cycle rather than closed out, and the re-scan variability data was retained as its evidence base.

Conditions for re-raise: Re-raise at the capital planning cycle for the follow-on contract, with the re-scan variability data as the benefit case. Re-raise immediately if the current build extends past the qualification window.

Deferred