ME.3:5.1 - Retain Approval and Question a Duplicate Trace Record

Consider two disputed requirements in the same release situation. The supplier’s signed approval establishes which pinout the supplier endorses; the provisional file alone leaves a material possibility of implementing an unendorsed connection. That protective contribution supports retaining the approval condition for release. A cheaper trace procedure does not supply the missing supplier decision, and the present release authority still withholds release when the required approval is absent.

The other requirement is a second manual copy of every trace link. In this constructed case, the versioned authoritative trace already exposes the same links and failed correspondences to the review, and the duplicate copy adds no check or independent information. Producing it consumes time needed to inspect a changed safety requirement. On those supplied facts, the criteria author can finish with a recommendation to remove the duplicate-copy obligation while preserving the trace and review that detect the actual defect. A different case in which the second check detects a consequential omission can support retention.

The recommendation names the governing trace-record rule and the authority needed to amend it. It does not treat the release decider’s authority as authority to change that rule. If timely amendment is unavailable, the current rule remains in force and the release arrangement must use a permissible continuation or a later slot. The present recommendation and its limit are complete; a new experiment is selected only if an obtainable result could change the appraisal enough to warrant its full burden.