AlliCrew Get in touch →
A worked example · fictional data

A compliance package is due in 10 days. It looks nearly done — is it actually complete?

Here's what you're looking at: on the left is a half-assembled inspection package — three forms, a stack of certs, a drawing, an open nonconformance. In the middle is a hand-authored example of the gap report a Documentation system produces from it. Every finding shows its work — click one to see the files behind it on the right.

A customer won't accept first-article delivery of a fictional shop's manifold until it submits a complete AS9102 inspection package. The shop has a project folder of records and 10 business days. This is a worked example of a Documentation / Compliance system reading those records, checking them against the standard, and producing the thing that matters — a gap report: what's complete, what's incomplete, what's missing, and what's an open quality action that has to be worked, not just retrieved.

Everything below is fictional but realistic. The records are a representative inspection package mid-assembly; the gap report is a hand-authored example of what a Documentation / Compliance system produces, built to the same sourcing discipline as our live Quote-to-Spec example; the evidence is the source text behind every finding. The real version runs this on one of your own compliance packages. This is not compliance advice — it is an example of pre-submission package-review logic.

Panel 1
The half-assembled package
The customer request, the FAI forms drafted so far, and the records they reference.
request DOC-REQ-2026-0512 · customer: Meridian Aerospace · AS9102 full FAI · 10 business days
The documentation request
The trigger. A rejected package restarts the 10-day clock.
MD
request_intake.md
Meridian won't accept first-article delivery until Riverbend submits a complete AS9102 package — all three forms plus objective evidence. First FAI for this customer; nothing to carry forward.
complete package required before delivery
The FAI package draft — what's assembled so far
Three forms, drafted, unsigned. Each carries a gap the drafter flagged.
MD
form1_draft.md  —  Part Number Accountability
Cover form. Field 5 says revision C; field 7 says revision B. The two don't agree — and the part was built to C.
drawing-revision mismatch: field 7 says B, should be C
MD
form2_draft.md  —  Product Accountability
Materials and special processes. The passivation cert is on file. The mill cert is not — only a distributor C-of-C. The welding process has no records in the package.
mill cert missing · welding evidence missing
MD
form3_draft.md  —  Characteristic Accountability
14 characteristics. 12 complete. Characteristic 13 has a row but no measured result. Characteristic 9 is nonconforming with an open NCR.
1 unmeasured characteristic · 1 open nonconformance
The project records — the objective evidence the forms reference
MD
drawing_record.md  ·  eng_change_confirmation.md
The drawing's Rev A/B/C history, and the engineering change confirmation — Meridian confirmed the part is built and inspected to Rev C. This resolves the Form 1 mismatch.
MD
material_coc_distributor.md
The distributor's certificate of conformance from Cascade Metals, for heat lot HL-77204. States conformance — but it is not the mill cert, and a scanned legacy document.
scanned legacy · distributor C-of-C, not mill cert
MD
passivation_cert.md
The passivation special-process cert from Northbay Finishing — complete, current, tied to the right part and serial. This is what a complete Form 2 entry looks like.
MD
inspection_report.md
The objective evidence behind Form 3. Records results for 13 of 14 characteristics — no entry for characteristic 13, and characteristic 9 nonconforming.
MD
ncr_open.md
Nonconformance report NCR-2026-0388-01, against characteristic 9. Raised 2026-05-02. No disposition, no corrective action, no re-inspection — open.
open nonconformance, no disposition
MD
job_traveler.md
The operation sequence. Operation 30 references the welding procedure spec and welder qualification log by name — neither is in the package.
Standing documents
MD
fai_std_as9102.md  ·  po_flowdown.md
The AS9102 requirement checklist — what "complete" means, the nonconformance rule, the five-point pre-submission gate — and the Meridian PO's quality flowdown.
The distractors — gathered, then correctly left out
Documents that look like they close a gap. The system pulls them in to check — and refuses to let them.
MD
distractor_prior_fair.md
A complete, accepted FAIR — but for a different 2025 Meridian job, different part, serial, and revision. Tempting as a template; it isn't one.
complete FAIR · wrong part & revision
MD
distractor_mill_cert.md
The real mill cert for heat lot HL-77204 — the exact heat this job's material came from. But it was issued to a different customer, not in Riverbend's traceability chain.
right heat lot · wrong traceability chain
Three forms, mostly drafted. Most characteristics measured. The big process cert on file. The package looks nearly done — and it is Not Complete in five different ways. One gap is a document to retrieve. One is a measurement never recorded. One is a cert that was never created. One is an open quality action that has to be worked and closed. Telling those apart — before the package goes to the customer — is the work.
Panel 2
The gap report
A hand-authored example of the assessment. Click any underlined finding to see the files behind it.
Package Readiness Assessment — FAIR-RMW-2026-0388
Hand-authored example · built from a 15-document package archive — every record cited below, the 2 distractors cited only to show they were correctly kept out of the gap findings · authored to the same sourcing discipline as the live Quote-to-Spec example
Bottom line

This package is Not Complete and is not submittable to the customer yet. Five gaps stand between it and a complete AS9102 package — and they are five different kinds of incomplete, each closed a different way.not submittable

  • A drawing-revision mismatch on Form 1 — a document to correct.sourced
  • A missing mill certificate on Form 2 — a document to retrieve.sourced
  • Missing welding-process evidence on Form 2 — records to pull into the package.sourced
  • An unmeasured characteristic on Form 3 — a measurement to record.sourced
  • An open nonconformance — a quality action to work and close.open
The request

Meridian Aerospace requires a complete AS9102 first-article inspection package — all three forms plus objective evidence — before it will accept first-article delivery. The target is 10 business days; a rejected package restarts the clock.sourced

Form 1 — Part Number Accountability

Form 1 field 7 shows drawing revision B. The part was built and inspected to revision C — field 5 already says C, and engineering confirmed Rev C with the customer. Field 7 must be corrected to C before the form is signed.sourced

The rest of Form 1 — part number, serial, job reference, full-FAI designation — is consistent and correct.

Form 2 — Product Accountability

The passivation special-process certification is complete and on file — correct specification, named processor, tied to the right part and serial.sourced

The mill certificate is missing. What is on file for heat lot HL-77204 is the distributor's certificate of conformance — not the mill's certificate and test report. For this Meridian package, the PO flowdown and Riverbend's FAI checklist call for the mill certificate and the full traceability chain; a distributor C-of-C states conformance but does not carry the mill's chemistry and test results, and does not satisfy that requirement.missing

The welding process has no objective evidence in the package. The drawing calls out GTAW welding; the welding was performed in-house; but no welding-process records — the WPS and welder qualification log — are in the package. The job traveler references both by name; they were never pulled in. The process may well be qualified in the shop — the package just doesn't carry the evidence.evidence missing

Form 3 — Characteristic Accountability

Twelve of the fourteen characteristics are complete, with conforming measured results.sourced

Characteristic 13 — overall assembly height — has a row but no measured result. The inspection report records no measurement for it. A Form 3 row with no result makes the FAIR incomplete; the characteristic has to be measured and the result entered.incomplete

Characteristic 9 — branch-to-header weld penetration — is nonconforming. One of the ten joints failed dye-penetrant examination, and NCR-2026-0388-01 was raised against it. The characteristic and the NCR reference are correctly recorded on Form 3 — but the nonconformance is open.nonconforming

The open nonconformance

NCR-2026-0388-01 is open and undispositioned — no disposition, no corrective action, no re-inspection result on file. Per AS9102, a FAIR with an open, undispositioned nonconformance is signed "Not Complete." This is the single largest gap in the package: not a document to find, but a quality action that has to be worked and closed.open issue

Gap report — what it takes to close each
  • Correct a document. Form 1 field 7: change Rev B to Rev C. The cheapest of the five — but a rejected-FAIR cause if it ships uncorrected. owner: Document Control
  • Retrieve a document. Obtain the mill certificate for heat lot HL-77204 from the distributor — the document exists, it is just not in the package. owner: Purchasing
  • Pull in objective evidence. Add the in-house welding procedure and welder qualification records to the package as Form 2 objective evidence. owner: Welding / Mfg Engineering
  • Record a measurement. Measure characteristic 13 and enter the result on Form 3. owner: Inspection
  • Work a quality action. Disposition NCR-2026-0388-01, verify the correction, and re-inspect characteristic 9. Until then the FAIR stays Not Complete. owner: Quality
What is complete and ready

Twelve of fourteen characteristics conform with recorded results; the passivation special-process cert is complete and on file; and the part-identification fields on Form 1 are correct. This is the work already done — the gap report above is the work that remains.sourced

That said: twelve conforming characteristics do not make the package "nearly submittable." It is Not Complete regardless of how many characteristics pass — the submission gate is all-or-nothing.

Uncertainty / review flags
  • Characteristic 13: the inspection report cannot establish whether it was measured-and-not-recorded or never measured. Either way, no result is on file.
  • The distributor C-of-C is a scanned legacy document — but the gap is what the document is, not its scan quality.
  • A complete prior FAIR for a different job is in the file. It is not a template and its certs do not carry forward — this is a full FAI from scratch.
  • A real mill cert for the right heat lot is in the file — issued to a different customer. Same heat number is not the same traceability chain; it does not close the mill-cert gap.
Recommended next actions
  • Start the NCR disposition now — it is the longest pole. It cannot be retrieved or corrected on paper; it has to be worked.longest pole
  • In parallel, correct Form 1 field 7, request the mill cert from the distributor, pull the welding records into the package, and measure characteristic 13 — these four can move at once.sourced
Sources

Every finding above resolves to documents in the package archive — click any underlined finding to see them. The two distractor records — the complete prior FAIR and the wrong-customer mill cert — were gathered and reviewed, and appear in none of the gap findings. Both are documents that look like they close a gap; neither does.

Panel 3
The evidence behind it
Every finding traces to documents in the package archive. Click a finding to see them.
← Click any highlighted claim in the brief to see the source files behind it — the actual document text, and why it supports the claim.
"This package is Not Complete and is not submittable to the customer yet."
Source documents
standing_docs / fai_std_as9102.mdpre-submission gate
Before a FAIR goes to a customer, Riverbend quality confirms: Form 1 drawing revision matches the as-built revision; every Form 2 material and process has a valid certificate; every Form 3 characteristic has an actual measured result; no nonconformance is open and undispositioned. A package that fails any of the five is not treated as complete for pre-submission review, and is not submitted.
fai_std_as9102.mdnonconformance rule
An FAIR with an open, undispositioned nonconformance is not complete. A package is not submittable as "complete" while an NCR is open.
Why this is not a judgment call: It's the package's own gate logic. Riverbend's FAI checklist and the Meridian flowdown set the bar — correct revision, objective evidence for every material and process, every characteristic measured, no open NCR. Four of those five conditions fail here. The system reports what the checklist already determines; it doesn't soften it.
"Form 1 field 7 shows Rev B; the part was built and inspected to Rev C."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form1_draft.mdthe mismatch
Field 5 (Part Revision Level) says C. Field 7 (Drawing Revision Level) says B. These do not agree, and the part was built to Rev C. Field 7 needs to be corrected to C before this form is signed.
project_records / eng_change_confirmation.mdresolves it to Rev C
Riverbend engineering contacted Meridian to confirm which revision the part should be built and inspected to. Meridian confirmed: build and inspect to Rev C. The PO's Rev B citation is superseded by this confirmation.
project_records / inspection_report.mdinspected to Rev C
Drawing revision inspected to: Rev C (confirmed against the current released drawing).
Why this is a real gap, not a typo: The PO cited Rev B because it predated Rev C. But engineering confirmed Rev C with the customer, the part was built to Rev C, and the inspection was done to Rev C. Form 1 must show the as-built revision. It's the cheapest of the five gaps to close — and a rejected-FAIR cause if it ships uncorrected.
"The mill certificate is missing — the distributor certificate of conformance on file does not satisfy Form 2."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form2_draft.mdnote 1
The copy in the project file is the distributor's certificate of conformance from Cascade Metals, not the mill's certificate and test report. For this Meridian package, the PO flowdown and Riverbend's FAI checklist call for the mill certificate and the traceability chain from distributor back to mill. The mill certificate for HL-77204 is not in this project file.
project_records / material_coc_distributor.mdwhat's on file · scanned legacy
This is Cascade Metals' distributor certificate of conformance. It is not the mill's certificate and test report. It states conformance but does not carry the mill's actual chemistry and mechanical test results for heat HL-77204.
standing_docs / fai_std_as9102.mdForm 2 requirement
For each raw material: material specification, supplier, heat/lot reference, mill certificate reference.
Why this is the centerpiece: A distributor C-of-C and a mill certificate are different documents. The C-of-C states conformance; the mill cert carries the actual chemistry and test results and anchors the traceability chain. The system does not accept the document that's present as if it were the document that's required — it names exactly what's missing and where to get it.
"The welding process has no objective evidence in the package — the referenced WPS and welder qualification log are missing."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form2_draft.mdnote 2
The Rev C drawing calls out two special processes: GTAW welding per AWS D17.1, and passivation per AMS 2700. The passivation cert is on file. There is no welding-process certification on file for the GTAW work.
project_records / job_traveler.mdoperation 30
The traveler's operation 30 references the welding procedure specification WPS-RMW-D171 and the welder qualification log as the objective evidence for the in-house GTAW work. Neither WPS-RMW-D171 nor the welder qualification log is in this project file.
project_records / drawing_record.mdRev C process callout
Special process — welding: GTAW per AWS D17.1, all branch-to-header joints.
Why the system caught this: The drawing calls out two special processes. One — passivation — has a complete cert on file. The other — welding — does not, even though the traveler points to the welding cert by name. The system tracks what the records point to, not just what's present: the traveler references a cert that isn't in the package.
"Characteristic 13 has no measured result."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form3_draft.mdchar 13 row
Characteristic 13 (overall assembly height, 8.50 ±0.05) has a row but no actual measured result. A Form 3 row with no result makes the FAIR incomplete — characteristic 13 has to be measured and the result entered before Form 3 is done.
project_records / inspection_report.mdnot recorded
Characteristic 13 (overall assembly height, 8.50 ±0.05) does not have a recorded measurement in this report. Whether it was measured and not recorded, or not measured at all, cannot be determined from this report. Either way, there is no result on file for characteristic 13.
Why a blank is a gap: A Form 3 row with no result makes the FAIR incomplete. The inspection report measured 13 of 14 characteristics and has no entry for characteristic 13. The system does not infer a result or assume it passed — a blank result is a gap, and it's a different kind of gap from a missing document: it's a measurement that has to be taken.
"Characteristic 9 is nonconforming, with an open NCR raised against it."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form3_draft.mdchar 9, note 1
Characteristic 9 (branch-to-header weld penetration) was found nonconforming at first inspection — one of the ten branch joints showed insufficient penetration. Nonconformance report NCR-2026-0388-01 was raised against it. As long as NCR-2026-0388-01 is open, this FAIR is "Not Complete."
project_records / inspection_report.mdnonconformance section
One of the ten branch-to-header joints showed insufficient weld penetration. The other nine joints conformed. The nonconforming joint was documented on nonconformance report NCR-2026-0388-01.
Why this is recorded right but still a gap: The Form 3 handling is correct — the nonconforming characteristic is on Form 3 with the NCR referenced against it, exactly as AS9102 requires. The gap is not the recording; it's that the NCR itself is open. The characteristic is honestly marked nonconforming, not quietly passed.
"NCR-2026-0388-01 is open and undispositioned — the single largest gap in the package."
Source documents
project_records / ncr_open.mddisposition
OPEN — no disposition recorded. No disposition (rework / repair / use-as-is / scrap) has been entered. No corrective action has been recorded. No re-inspection result is on file. The NCR was raised on 2026-05-02 and has not been closed.
ncr_open.mdstatus for FAI
This is the single largest gap in the package — it is not a missing document that can be retrieved, it is an open quality action that has to be worked and closed.
standing_docs / fai_std_as9102.mdnonconformance rule
The NCR must be dispositioned and the correction verified before the FAIR can be called complete.
Why this is the hardest gap: It's the page's open-issue — parallel to a service ticket left open. The NCR was raised and never closed: no disposition, no corrective action, no re-inspection. AS9102 is explicit that a FAIR with an open NCR is "Not Complete." This is not a document to find or a measurement to take — it's a quality action that has to be worked.
"Meridian requires a complete AS9102 package before first-article delivery; a rejection restarts the 10-day clock."
Source documents
doc_request / request_intake.mdthe request
Meridian will not accept first-article delivery of the RMW-2026-0388 manifold until Riverbend submits a complete First Article Inspection package per AS9102. Customer wants the package assembled and submitted within 10 business days. A rejected FAI package restarts that clock.
standing_docs / po_flowdown.mdrejection cost
A FAI package that Meridian rejects must be corrected and re-submitted — a full re-submission cycle, roughly 5–7 business days per cycle. The point of the pre-submission review is to catch the gaps before Meridian does.
Why this frames the whole assessment: The deadline and the rejection cost are why the gap report exists. Catching five gaps now costs days of internal work; letting Meridian catch them costs a full re-submission cycle against a clock that restarts. The assessment's job is to make the gaps visible before the package ships.
"The passivation special-process certification is complete and on file."
Source documents
project_records / passivation_cert.mdstatus for FAI
This certification is complete and on file. It covers the passivation special process called out on the Rev C drawing, references the correct specification (AMS 2700), names the processor, and is tied to the correct part and serial. This is what a complete Form 2 special-process entry looks like.
fai_package_draft / form2_draft.mdForm 2 special processes
Passivation — Northbay Finishing — AMS 2700, Method 1 — PC-NORTHBAY-2026-0419 — on file.
Why the assessment names what's done: The passivation cert is the contrast that makes the missing welding cert visible — one special process is fully certified, the other isn't. Reporting what's complete is not reassurance; it's what tells the reader the gap report is the remaining work, not the whole job.
"Twelve of the fourteen characteristics are complete, with conforming measured results."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form3_draft.mdForm 3 summary
12 of 14 characteristics complete with results. 1 characteristic (13) has no measured result — incomplete. 1 characteristic (9) is nonconforming with an open NCR — FAIR Not Complete.
project_records / inspection_report.mdobjective evidence
It supports 13 of the 14 Rev C characteristics — 12 conforming results plus the one nonconforming result on characteristic 9. It does not support characteristic 13, which has no recorded result.
Why "12 of 14" is reported as fact, not reassurance: The conforming count is real and worth stating. But the assessment does not let it imply the package is nearly submittable — the package is Not Complete regardless of how many characteristics pass. The count is information, not a verdict.
"What is complete: 12 conforming characteristics, the passivation cert, and the correct Form 1 identification fields."
Source documents
project_records / inspection_report.md12 conforming results
All recorded results are within Rev C tolerance except characteristic 9. The report supports 12 conforming results plus the one nonconforming result on characteristic 9.
project_records / passivation_cert.mdcomplete Form 2 entry
This certification is complete and on file. It covers the passivation special process called out on the Rev C drawing.
fai_package_draft / form1_draft.mdcorrect identification fields
Part number RMW-CM-2026-0388, serial RMW-CM-26-0388-001, job reference RMW-2026-0388, Full FAI — all consistent. Only field 7 (drawing revision) is wrong.
Why the assessment states what's done: So the reader knows the gap report is the remaining work, not the whole job. But "what's complete" is reported as fact, and the assessment does not let the conforming count blur the verdict — the package is still Not Complete.
"A complete prior FAIR for a different job is in the file — and it is not a template for this one."
Source documents
project_records / distractor_prior_fair.mdwhy it stays out
It must not be merged into the RMW-2026-0388 package. Its part number is different, its serial is different, its drawing revision is different, and its certs are for a different heat lot and different process runs. A cert from this 2025 package does not satisfy a 2026-0388 Form 2 entry.
doc_request / request_intake.mdfull FAI from scratch
This is the first FAI Riverbend has run for Meridian. There is no prior accepted FAIR to carry characteristics forward from — it is a full FAI, every characteristic, every cert, from scratch.
Why this exclusion is part of the proof: The prior FAIR is tempting precisely because it is complete and accepted — same customer, similar part. A naive assembly might pull its certs forward or use it as a template. The system gathered it, recognized it as the wrong job, and cited it in none of the gap findings.
"A real mill cert for the right heat lot is in the file — issued to a different customer. It does not close the mill-cert gap."
Source documents
project_records / distractor_mill_cert.mdwhy it's a distractor
This mill cert was issued to Tideline Fabrication, a different Riverbend customer, for their purchase of material from the same heat HL-77204. It is genuinely tempting: it is the right document type, for the right heat lot, the exact heat number that RMW-2026-0388's material came from.
distractor_mill_cert.mdsame heat ≠ same chain
It is not Riverbend's cert and not in Riverbend's traceability chain for this job. The Form 2 traceability chain has to run Riverbend → Cascade Metals → mill. Same heat number is not the same traceability chain.
Why this is the most pointed exclusion: This document is the right type, for the exact heat lot the job's material came from — it looks like it closes the centerpiece gap. It doesn't: traceability runs through Riverbend's own purchase chain, not a different customer's. The system refused to let a document that looks like the answer paper over the real gap.
"Start the NCR disposition now — it is the longest pole."
Source documents
project_records / ncr_open.mdwhat closing it takes
The NCR must be dispositioned, the correction (if any) verified, and the affected characteristic re-inspected before this FAIR is complete. This is the single largest gap in the package — it is not a missing document that can be retrieved, it is an open quality action that has to be worked and closed.
Why it goes first: Disposition, correction, verification, and re-inspection is a sequence of work, not a retrieval — it has the longest path to closed. The other four gaps can move in parallel while it runs. Sequencing the assessment's recommendations by what takes longest is how the 10-day clock gets respected.
"In parallel: correct Form 1, request the mill cert, pull in the welding records, measure characteristic 13."
Source documents
fai_package_draft / form1_draft.mdcorrect a document
Field 7 needs to be corrected to C before this form is signed.
fai_package_draft / form2_draft.mdretrieve · obtain
The mill certificate for HL-77204 has to be obtained from Cascade Metals before Form 2 is complete. Form 2 still needs the in-house welding process certification — welder qualification and procedure qualification per AWS D17.1.
fai_package_draft / form3_draft.mdrecord a measurement
Characteristic 13 has to be measured and the result entered before Form 3 is done.
Why these four group together: A correction, a retrieval, a records pull, and a measurement — none depends on the others, and none is a multi-step quality action. They can all move at once while the NCR disposition runs in parallel. The assessment orders the work by dependency, not by form number.
This assessment was authored to a standard — the same one our live system enforces.

This assessment is hand-authored to represent Documentation / Compliance output. The Quote-to-Spec system it's modeled on ships with two layers of automated checks — every claim resolved to a source, every prohibited overclaim blocked. The Documentation system applies the same discipline: it must surface every gap — the stale revision, the missing mill cert, the missing welding-process evidence, the unmeasured characteristic, the open NCR — and it must never claim a package is complete, a characteristic verified, or a nonconformance closed when the records don't support it. Same checks, same refusal to overclaim — on a compliance-package workload.

15
findings, all sourced
0
distractors cited in the gap findings
5
gaps surfaced, not smoothed over
On your data

This one was fictional. Yours wouldn't be.

The request, the forms, the records, and the gap report above were built from invented data. The real version runs this on one of your own compliance packages — and the assessment comes back built against your records, with the same discipline: what's complete, what's incomplete, what's missing, what's an open quality action — every finding sourced, every gap named by what it takes to close, nothing called complete that isn't.

Request a working sample →

One package. A gap report back within a week. No charge for the first one.