Meridian Aerostructures machines and assembles aerostructure brackets, fittings, housings and skin panels for Customer A (example). Its supplier quality engineer is S. Patel; the quality manager is R. Chen; the plant manager is T. Brooks; K. Ward buys; D. Ruiz runs receiving inspection; L. Nguyen runs operations. The records below are the ones in the worked examples of each tool, as they stood on November 4, 2026.
15.1 The supply base
Eleven sources on the approved list (AQL-C03 ), rated on the risk matrix (AQL-C02 ) and scored for Q3 2026 (AQL-C04 ):
Supplier Supplies Risk Status Q3 rating Supplier B (example) Connectors and catalog parts (distributor) Low Approved Green Supplier C (example) Standard fasteners (distributor) Medium Approved Green Supplier D (example) Titanium and 17-4 PH forgings High (override) Probation Red Supplier E (example) Machined housing blanks Medium Approved Green Supplier F (example) Anodize and chemical film: the only approved source High Approved with conditions Red Supplier G (example) Machined 17-4 PH fittings Medium Approved with conditions Yellow Supplier H (example) Heat treatment, as Supplier G's sub-tier Medium Approved (through G only) Scored through G Supplier K (example) Fluorescent penetrant inspection Medium Approved from 2026-10-12 New Supplier L (example) Calibration laboratory Low Approved Rated yearly Supplier M (example) Anodize: the candidate second source Medium First articles only New Supplier P (example) Passivation Low Approved (re-evaluation overdue) Green
Across the base, 233 of 268 purchase order lines arrived on time in Q3: 86.9 percent against a 95 percent target. Of the 35 late lines, 18 were Supplier F's. Two suppliers were Red, one Yellow. Three supplier corrective actions were open on November 4 (SCAR-26-017, SCAR-26-014 and SCAR-26-019).
15.2 Supplier F: from a thin coating to a second source
Supplier F (example) is Meridian's only approved anodizer, and a Customer A approved source for its process specification. It coats most of what Meridian ships. Its story runs through almost every tool in the kit:
When What happened Where it shows Q1 2026 Thin anodize on bracket 2250-410 reached Customer A (example); worked as an 8D (AQL-B03 ) Scorecard Red for the quarter (escape rule) Q2 2026 On-time delivery 82.8 percent; lead time up from 5 to 7 working days Scorecard Yellow 2026-07-08 and 07-10 Two receipts of 5120-100 and 5120-110 below minimum thickness (NCR-26-244, NCR-26-246; CAPA-26-038) C08 line opened2026-07-14 SCAR-26-014 issued on the CAR template (AQL-B01 ) C08 : stage dates set2026-07-28 to 08-03 Recovery plan RP-26-01 agreed: exit criteria, consequences signed 07-31, day 0 08-03 C12 Plan record A to F2026-07-31 Root cause accepted at the second answer (titration skipped on second shift) C08 : one rejection counted2026-09-02 Day 30 gate: 67 percent on time against 80; quality held C12 : continue with added actions2026-10-02 Day 60 gate: 81 percent against 88; quality held; search for a second source starts C12 : continue with added actions2026-10-09 Q3 scorecard: 71.0 percent on time, overall 82.7 percent, Red; shared with the supplier C04 line; Summary 86.9 percent for the base2026-10-21 Thin again on 5120-100 (NCR-26-379) C08 : line noted2026-10-22 Q3 management review approves qualifying a second anodize source (MRA-26-09) F03 , F06 2026-10-27 to 10-29 Thin again on 5520-114 (NCR-26-386); effectiveness check failed; reopened October 29 B11 ; C08 : reopened, same line2026-10-28 to 10-30 Supplier M (example) assessed on site; approved for first articles only C01 ; C03 2026-10-30 Supplier F moved to approved with conditions; purchasing told the same day C03 Status changes2026-11-01 Day 90 gate: 86 percent against 95, and the recurrence: exit criteria missed; plan extended C12 : rev B from 11-092026-11-03 Receiving told; revised root cause (rack load) accepted; Q3 business review held C03 ; C08 ; C05
15.3 What each tool showed
The scorecard (C04 ). Q2: 82.8 percent on time, overall 93.6 percent, Yellow. Q3: 44 of 62 lines on time (71.0 percent), 2 of 58 lots rejected (96.6 percent), 4 of 6 corrective action stages on time (66.7 percent), 56 of 58 certificates accepted first time (96.6 percent): overall 82.7 percent, Red, down nearly 11 points. The lot acceptance figure alone looked healthy; the responsiveness and delivery figures told the real story, which is why the scorecard shows all four.
The SCAR register (C08 ). SCAR-26-014 issued July 14. Containment accepted the next day. The first root cause, 'operator did not check the tank', was sent back; the second, titration skipped on second shift with no step on the start-up checklist, was confirmed by the titration log and accepted July 31. Actions verified August 13; criterion: no thickness rejects at receiving within 90 days of August 4. Four receipts in the window conformed; the October 21 and 27 receipts did not (NCR-26-379, NCR-26-386). The line was reopened on October 29, not renumbered, and the revised root cause (full racks run thin at the low positions, with no maximum rack load for the part family) was accepted November 3, with a rack-load trial due November 13.
The recovery plan (C12 ). RP-26-01 opened July 28 when July's on-time delivery fell to 65 percent with 11 lines past due and the quoted lead time at 9 working days. Exit criteria: 95 percent on time for 4 consecutive weeks, no thickness rejects in the last 8 weeks, no past-due lines, lead time back to 5 days. Phase targets 80, 88 and 95 percent. Both sides signed the consequences on July 31. Day 30: 14 of 21 lines on time (67 percent); a Saturday shift and a second rack set followed. Day 60: 21 of 26 (81 percent); Meridian froze its releases two weeks out and S. Patel started looking for a second source. Day 90: 19 of 22 (86 percent), and the October recurrence. The criteria were missed, so the agreed consequences followed without an argument: conditional approval, every lot inspected, no new part numbers, a second source, and rev B of the plan from November 9 with its exit gate on January 8, 2027.
The approved list (C03 ). Supplier F moved from Approved to Approved with conditions on October 30, decided by T. Brooks. Purchasing was told that day. Receiving was told on November 3, four days later, and a lot received on November 2 went through standard inspection; it was pulled back and thickness-checked on November 3, and it conformed. The Status changes tab shows the gap ('Done, but late: check receipts in between'). Its Nadcap accreditation renews on December 15, so the certificate status also reads 'Renews within 60 days'.
The business review (C05 ). Held at Supplier F on November 3 with its general manager. The trend slide showed delivery falling four quarters running while quality looked steady. Supplier F's own slide named a 5120-110 drawing revision Meridian issued with no notice, and asked for Q1 2027 volumes; Meridian took both actions. Meridian told Supplier F plainly that it is qualifying a second anodize source, and what rev B must show by January 8.
15.4 Supplier M: qualifying the second source
The Q3 management review on October 22 approved qualifying a second anodize source (MRA-26-09, due January 29, 2027). S. Patel and D. Ruiz assessed Supplier M (example) on site on October 28 with the Supplier Qualification Assessment (AQL-C01 ). Of 26 criteria, 24 applied; 20 were met and 4 partly met. One of the partly met was critical: Supplier M was not yet on Customer A's approved-source list for the anodize specification (Meridian requested the listing on October 30). The assessment therefore suggested 'Not ready: critical gaps'.
R. Chen decided 'Approved for first articles or trial only', with the reason written down: every other critical criterion was met, and starting first articles now keeps the second source on track without shipping any part from an unlisted source. Five conditions went onto the Conditions tab, each with an owner and a date: the customer listing, first articles on three part numbers, part separators on racks, a continuity plan for the anodize line, and a process audit at the first production run. On the risk matrix Supplier M rates Medium: high impact, but a track record of 2 because it has none yet.
15.5 Supplier D: probation and the look-back
In August three forging lots from Supplier D (example) arrived with certificates naming a different heat from the one marked on the titanium forgings. SCAR-26-017 was issued on August 14, and Supplier D went on probation on August 18: every lot's certificate heat checked against the marking at receiving, no new part numbers, and a look-back at lots received since May. The look-back mattered: the traceability challenge (AQL-D06 ) traces a July lot whose bin tag and certificate also disagree.
The first root cause, 'clerical error', was sent back; the accepted one was that certificates were prepared from the order rather than from the heat issued to the job. The calculated risk rating was Medium; S. Patel overrode it to High with the reason on the line: a traceability failure on flight-critical titanium, with the look-back still open. Supplier D's Q3 scorecard fell from Green (97.8 percent) to Red (67.3 percent), and only 1 of its 3 response stages was on time.
15.6 Supplier G and the heat treater nobody had asked about
At an oversight review on October 8, using the Special Process Supplier Control Matrix (AQL-C16 ), S. Patel found that Supplier H (example), the heat treater Supplier G (example) uses on fitting 8150-060, had also been doing the fluorescent penetrant inspection on those fittings. Its Nadcap scope covered heat treating only, and Customer A required an accredited, listed source for penetrant. Customer A was told on October 9. The work moved to Supplier K (example) on October 12, and the three shipped lots were re-inspected there under NCR-26-362: all accepted.
SCAR-26-019 went to Supplier G for its flow-down to sub-tiers, and Supplier G moved to approved with conditions: every special process source named on its certificates, and no change of source without Meridian's written approval. Supplier H went onto the approved list as a sub-tier source, approved for heat treatment through Supplier G only. Supplier K was assessed and approved on October 12, with its own condition: every certificate read for method, sensitivity and inspector level for six months.
15.7 What went to management review, and what Meridian learned
The supplier figures in the Q3 management review data pack (AQL-F03 ): supplier on-time delivery 86.9 percent against 95, down from 88.4; one supplier on escalation (Supplier F, since July); two supplier corrective actions open at quarter end. The review approved the second anodize source (MRA-26-09) and added a 2027 objective for supplier on-time delivery.
The lessons S. Patel wrote into the procedure afterward:
Status changes reach receiving the same day, in person; the next receipt is checked. A recovery plan that is behind at its 30-day gate starts the second-source search then, not at day 60. For any coating or plating SCAR, ask for readings by rack or load position before accepting a root cause. The July root cause explained the July lots but never asked why only some parts in a load were thin. The sub-tier survey goes to every machining supplier every year, and whenever a routing changes. Probation always includes a look-back at lots already received, not only a forward check.
What the example shows about the kit
No single tool caught Supplier F's problem; the records together did. The scorecard showed the slide, the SCAR register showed the weak root cause and the recurrence, the recovery plan made the day 90 decision a reading of the figures, and the approved list made the decision act at the dock, four days late. That last gap is the one we would fix first.
← Chapter 14 Setting it up in thirty days Chapter 16 → For your general manager: one page Need more than one resource, or not sure where to start? Book a complimentary 30-minute Aegis Quality Guidance Call . We'll find the tools that fit your situation and a sensible place to start. No sales pressure, no obligation.
A management aid, not certification or a registrar audit. Using it does not by itself show conformity to AS9100D or any other standard, and your customers' requirements may add to it.
Clause numbers refer to AS9100D (SAE AS9100 Rev D) unless another document is named. The standards' text is not reproduced here: use your own licensed copy.
Aegis Insights are our own guidance, labeled wherever they appear: how we approach this work, not a requirement of any standard or customer.