🦥 SlothSpec redline

• The requirement uses 'shall follow the process in KDP-KSC-P-1865,' which is an instruction to follow a procedure rather than a verifiable system behavior.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation and process flow to confirm adherence to KDP-KSC-P-1865.

• The term 'indicated' is vague; it needs to specify *how* the indication must occur (e.g., via a specific field, checklist, or document section).

Verify by: Review the engineering documentation to confirm that records for all qualification tests and inspections are present.

• The scope of 'access provisions' is not defined, making verification difficult.

Verify by: Inspect the GS design documentation and physical prototype to confirm the presence and adequacy of access provisions as defined by <<specific access criteria>>.

• The term 'close proximity' is not quantified, making verification impossible.

Verify by: Inspect the design drawings to confirm that all connections within the specified proximity adhere to the cross-connection prevention design.

• The requirement defers to external documents ('program or mission requirements', 'design drawings and maintenance documents') without specifying the required life, making it untestable as written.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm the specified operational life requirement is documented and traceable.

• The term 'limited life' is not defined and needs a measurable criterion.

Verify by: Inspect the design drawings to confirm that all items with a defined limited life are marked and annotated with the specific limitation.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject (what 'shall be used' implies) and needs to specify the action or condition under which the colors must be used.

Verify by: Inspect the design and painted GS against the color specifications listed in Appendix A.

• The term 'physically oriented or separated' is too vague to define a pass/fail criterion.

Verify by: Measure the physical distance between the redundant components and confirm it meets the specified separation distance.

• The term 'eliminate redundancy' is not precisely measurable; it needs a defined failure mode or metric.

Verify by: Analyze the design documentation to confirm that failure modes related to contamination do not result in the loss of redundant function.

• The term 'methods for verifying' is too vague; specify the required verification mechanism or criteria.

Verify by: Review the design documentation to confirm the specified verification mechanism meets the stated criteria.

• The term 'fail-safe' is not defined or quantified, making the requirement untestable.

Verify by: Analyze the design documentation against the defined fail-safe criteria.

• The term 'sustain a failure' is too vague; specify the type or magnitude of failure that must be sustained.

Verify by: Induce the specified failure mode and verify that GS continues to perform its basic function.

• The requirement is too high-level; it mandates compliance with a document but doesn't specify the required system behavior.

Verify by: Inspect the system design documentation to confirm that all specified failure modes and operator actions are addressed per NPR 8705.2.

• The term 'failures' is too broad; it needs to specify the type or source of failure being prevented.

Verify by: Analyze the system architecture and failure modes to confirm that the specified failure type cannot propagate to the flight systems.

• The requirement implies a process ('shall be performed') rather than a verifiable system state, and 'program-defined methodology' is too vague without reference.

Verify by: Inspect the FMEA documentation to confirm it was performed on the correct systems and followed the specified methodology.

• The requirement bundles identification, categorization, and approval into one statement.
• The term 'undesirable event' is not defined or measurable.

Verify by: Review the FMEA documentation to confirm the identification of components based on the specified criteria.

• The phrase 'In the absence of a program requirement' creates a conditional dependency that is not fully defined for verification.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation to confirm the methodology used when no program requirement is present.

• Table 1 must be referenced to define the criticality categories.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation to confirm the use of Table 1 categories when program identification fails.

• The term 'potential threat' is vague and needs a measurable criterion for inclusion in the analysis scope.

Verify by: Inspect the criticality assessment and the Hazard Analysis report to confirm the scope matches the defined criteria.

• The phrase 'designed to function after exposure' is vague; it needs a specific performance metric or operational state to verify functionality.

Verify by: Subject the GS to environmental conditions specified in NASA-HDBK-1001 and verify that it maintains specified operational performance.

• The phrase 'shall be designed to withstand' is too broad; it needs a specific design criterion or testable threshold.

Verify by: Subject the GS to the launch-induced environment defined in program-specific documents and verify that it maintains full functionality.

• The requirement lacks specific numerical values for the temperature and humidity limits.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm the specified operating temperature and humidity ranges.

• The requirement defers to an external document ('program/project contamination control requirements') without specifying which one, making verification impossible without that document.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the specified contamination control requirements in <<document ID>>.

• The term 'designated as GS' is unclear; it should specify what 'GS' refers to.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with ASTM E2217 and the specified GS designation.

• The requirement uses 'shall be designed to meet' which is a design constraint, but the verification needs to confirm the design meets the standard, not just that it was designed to.
• The phrase 'most severe exterior environmental conditions' is slightly vague; it should reference the specific conditions derived from the standard.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the environmental specifications listed in NASA-HDBK-1001.

• The condition 'If GS will be operated in locations where fire or explosion hazards exist' is conditional and should be separated from the requirement itself.

Verify by: Inspect the GS documentation and physical installation against the requirements of KSC-STD-E-0002 when deployed in a hazardous location.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm adherence to the specified military and Korean standards.

• The requirement bundles two concepts: the scope (GS used in Zones 3 or 4) and the design constraint (resist seismic event).
• The phrase 'designed to resist' is not specific enough; it needs a measurable performance criterion derived from ASCE-7.

Verify by: Review the design documentation against the specific seismic design criteria outlined in ASCE-7 for the defined zones.

• The requirement references an incomplete standard reference (Vol.)

Verify by: Inspect the documentation package to confirm adherence to the specified drawing practices.

Verify by: Inspect the prepared documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-DF-107.

• The term 'controlled' is not defined; specify the required control mechanism (e.g., tracking, quarantine, usage logging).

Verify by: Inspect the item tracking records to confirm the required control mechanism was applied throughout the specified lifecycle.

• The reference to 'program’s/project’s S&MA Plan' is too broad; the specific document or section must be cited.

Verify by: Inspect the GS design documentation to confirm inclusion of requirements from the specified S&MA Plan.

• The requirement is too broad; it states *where* quality requirements shall be defined rather than *what* the quality requirements are.

Verify by: Review the design, fabrication, and installation contracts to confirm the presence of a documented process for defining quality requirements.

• The term 'engineering documentation' is too broad; specify which documents must contain the testing requirements.

Verify by: Inspect the specified engineering documentation to confirm the presence of testing requirements.

• The phrase 'program or project requirements' is too vague and needs to be specified or referenced.

Verify by: Inspect the documentation, data, and archive to confirm compliance with KNPR 8730.2 and the specified project requirements.

• The term 'design or working load' needs to be defined or referenced to be verifiable.

Verify by: Apply the calculated minimum test load to the GS and verify the system operates without failure.

Verify by: Inspect the test documentation to confirm that proofload testing was performed on all lifting devices and equipment according to NASA-STD-8719.9.

• The phrase 'In the absence of design analysis' is conditional and unclear regarding when this test must occur.

Verify by: Apply a load of 8 times the safe working load and measure the resulting factor of safety against the standards manual.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the action 'shall be in accordance with' (e.g., 'The NDE process shall...').

Verify by: Inspect the NDE documentation and procedures to confirm adherence to the criteria defined in 6.4.14.

• The requirement is too broad; it needs to specify *what* documentation is required (e.g., test reports, design reviews) and *how* compliance is verified.

Verify by: Inspect the provided documentation against the requirements listed in the program/project verification plan (Appendix B).

Verify by: Inspect the documentation to confirm compliance with NPR 6000.1.

• The term 'can be monitored' is vague; specify the required monitoring capability (e.g., remote reading, data logging).

Verify by: Inspect the container design and associated monitoring system to confirm that all specified indicators can be read or logged externally.

• The phrase 'so that contents can be identified without opening the container' describes a goal, not a verifiable requirement; this should be integrated into the marking specification.

Verify by: Inspect the container markings against the requirements specified in NPR 6000.1 to confirm contents identification is possible without opening.

• The term 'Procedures' is too vague; specify what procedures must be employed or what the protection criteria are.

Verify by: Inspect the documented procedures to confirm they address protection during manufacturing, handling, and storage.

• The requirement bundles two distinct compliance checks (NPR 6000.1 and program contamination control requirements) which should be separated or clarified.

Verify by: Inspect the packaging of precision-cleaned parts to confirm compliance with NPR 6000.1 and program contamination control requirements.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with AISC 325.

• The phrase 'established design practices' is too vague and needs to be specified or referenced.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm adherence to the specified design practices and the use of factors of safety from section 5.1.2.

• ADM is not defined, making verification impossible without external knowledge.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the specified version of ADM.

• The phrase 'established design practices' is too vague and needs to be specified or referenced.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm adherence to the specified design practices and factor of safety values.

• The minimum factor of safety value is missing.

Verify by: Review the design calculations against the specified factor of safety.

Verify by: Calculate the factor of safety using the specified material properties and compare it to 5.

• The term 'exceeding the UTS' is vague; it should specify the allowable margin or failure mode.

Verify by: Calculate the factor of safety using the specified UTS and the measured load.

• The term 'exceeding the UTS' is vague; it should specify the allowable margin or failure mode.

Verify by: Calculate the factor of safety using the specified UTS and the design load.

• The condition 'with no test data' is too broad and needs to be quantified or defined.

Verify by: Review the material specification and associated design documentation to confirm the absence of test data and verify the applied factor of safety.

• The requirement needs to specify the conditions under which the factor of safety is calculated (e.g., which test data set, what loading scenario).

Verify by: Analyze the provided test data against the UTS to confirm the calculated factor of safety meets or exceeds 5.

• The term 'exceeding the UTS' is slightly ambiguous; it should specify the failure mode or limit relative to the UTS.

Verify by: Calculate the factor of safety using the specified UTS and design loads.

• The reference to '(a)' is not provided, making the required factors of safety unverifiable.

Verify by: Inspect the fastener documentation against the specified factors of safety in the referenced document.

• The requirement lacks a defined load or stress condition against which the factor of safety is calculated.

Verify by: Perform a static stress analysis on the spring design using the specified operational load and material UTS.

• The term 'design life' is not quantified.

Verify by: Review the structural analysis documentation to confirm the factor of safety meets the specified minimum against the defined design life.

• What specific loads (e.g., static, dynamic, seismic) must be specified?

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm that all required structural design loads are listed.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-Z-0005.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation against the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with KSC-STD-Z-0008.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with ASME B31.9.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with ASME B31.9 for systems operating up to 1.0 MPa.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the specified standards.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-Z-0009.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the action; 'The design of GS' is too broad.

Verify by: Inspect the GS design documentation against the requirements specified in NFPA 59A.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements specified in ASME B31.3.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the referenced standards.

Verify by: Inspect the GSE documentation against the specified chapter of the ASHRAE Handbook.

• The requirement lacks a specific criterion for the isolation mechanism (e.g., valve type, required seal integrity).

Verify by: Inspect the gaseous nitrogen supply line to confirm the presence and configuration of two valves in series, and verify that the venting path exists between the valves.

• The requirement lacks a specific threshold or measurement criteria for the oxygen content monitoring capability.

Verify by: Connect the nitrogen supply and verify that the ECS system reports the oxygen content reading to the specified interface.

• The requirement bundles two acceptable standards; it should specify which standard applies to which part of the design, or if both are acceptable for the entire design.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the specified standard.

• The subject 'design of GS used for life support systems' is too broad; it should specify the exact component or system being designed.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-Z-0008.

• The term 'provisions for tethering' is too vague; specify the required tethering mechanism or capability.

Verify by: Inspect the GS design and construction to confirm the presence and suitability of the specified tethering mechanism.

Verify by: Inspect the pins and tethers against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-P-0006.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the specified ASME B30.1 standard.

• The requirement lacks a specific scope or context for the design compliance (e.g., which part of the hardware, which phase of design).

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm adherence to SAE ARP 1247 for the specified hardware item.

• The requirement lacks a specific scope or action beyond referencing a standard, which is insufficient for a complete design requirement.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements listed in SAE AS 8090.

• The term 'loads imparted' is vague; specify the type of load (e.g., static, dynamic, vibration) and the measurement point.

Verify by: Analyze the design documentation and load calculations to confirm the load margin.

• The requirement bundles design, construction, testing, and stamping into a single statement; these should be separated if they represent distinct verification activities.

Verify by: Inspect the design documents, construction records, test reports, and stamped vessels against the referenced ASME codes.

• The requirement bundles design, construction, testing, and marking into one statement, which should be separated.

Verify by: Inspect the design documents, construction records, test reports, and physical vessels to confirm compliance with ASME BPVC-X.

Verify by: Inspect the pressure vessels against the requirements specified in 49 CFR 171 through 180.

• The requirement bundles two distinct design options (ASME B31.3 or ASME B31.8) based on a complex condition, making it hard to verify compliance for a specific installation.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm the applicable ASME standard was used based on the defined traffic conditions.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the referenced sections of KNPR 8715.3.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the design action; it should specify *what* shall be designed according to the standard.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with KSC-GP-986.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the action; 'The design of GS' is too broad.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-E-0001.

Verify by: Inspect the electrical design documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-E-0004.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the action; it states 'The design... shall be in accordance' but doesn't specify *what* shall be in accordance (e.g., 'The pyrotechnic GS design shall comply with...').

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm adherence to the requirements specified in NASA-STD-8719.12.

• The requirement bundles two distinct compliance checks (NFPA 70 and NFPA 70E) into a single statement.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the requirements of NFPA 70 and NFPA 70E.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation and installation records to confirm compliance with KSC-STD-E-0022 and NFPA 70.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation and installation records to confirm compliance with KSC-STD-E-0012 and NFPA 70.

Verify by: Inspect the interface documentation against the requirements specified in NASA-STD-4003.

• The requirement is too broad; it needs to specify which part of NPR 7150.2 applies or if the entire document must be met.

Verify by: Inspect the software design documentation against the specified section of NPR 7150.2.

• The requirement does not specify *which* firmware or *which* part of the design is being referenced by 'GS'.

Verify by: Inspect the firmware documentation against the requirements specified in NPR 7150.2.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject for the action; 'EEE parts' is too broad.

Verify by: Inspect the parts selection documentation against KSC-PLN-5406.

Verify by: Inspect the tubing material and documentation against the requirements specified in KSC-SPEC-Z-0007.

• The requirement bundles three distinct actions (fabrication, testing, installation) that should likely be separated for clearer verification.

Verify by: Inspect the fabrication, testing records, and installation procedures against KSC-SPEC-Z-0008.

Verify by: Inspect the tubing material against the specified UNS numbers and KSC-SPEC-P-0027.

• The requirement bundles three distinct actions (fabrication, testing, installation) that should likely be separated for clearer traceability.

Verify by: Inspect the fabrication, testing records, and installation documentation against KSC-SPEC-Z-0008.

Verify by: Inspect the material certification documentation to confirm compliance with ASTM A312.

Verify by: Inspect the material certification documentation to confirm compliance with ASTM B241.

Verify by: Inspect the material certification of the expansion joints used in the specified environments.

Verify by: Inspect the selected fittings against the requirements specified in KSC-GP-425.

• The condition 'unless the required part is not covered by this series' is confusingly phrased and needs clarification on the exception criteria.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm component selection against the 79K80000 series or verify the documented exception approval.

Verify by: Inspect the receptacles and plugs against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-E-0011.

Verify by: Inspect the receptacles and plugs against the requirements specified in KSC-GP-864.

• The requirement lacks specificity on which aspect of NFPA 70 must be met (e.g., insulation rating, conductor size, installation method).

Verify by: Inspect the installed power cables against the relevant sections of NFPA 70 for the specified cable type.

• The requirement bundles two distinct items (cable and cable harnesses) that should likely be separated for clarity.

Verify by: Inspect the cable and cable harnesses against the specifications detailed in KSC-GP-864.

Verify by: Inspect the assemblies, installations, and terminations against the requirements specified in NASA-STD-8739.5 and KSC-GP-864.

Verify by: Inspect the electrical hookup wire against the referenced standards to confirm compliance.

Verify by: Inspect the Bill of Materials or design documentation to confirm the selected connector conforms to one of the listed standards.

• The requirement bundles two distinct conditions: waterproofing and the use of threaded connectors.

Verify by: Inspect the connector documentation to confirm compliance with hazardous location waterproofing standards and verify the physical connection type.

Verify by: Inspect the Bill of Materials and component drawings to confirm the specified connectors comply with MIL-PRF-39012.

• The requirement implies a condition ('when they are not connected') but doesn't specify the required state or action for the covers/caps themselves.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm that protective covers or caps are specified for the connectors according to KSC-GP-864 when disconnected.

• The requirement implies a selection process but doesn't specify the required outcome or verification method against the standard.

Verify by: Inspect the component selection documentation to confirm adherence to KSC-NE-9187.

Verify by: Inspect the enclosures and documentation to confirm compliance with NFPA 496 standards.

• The requirement implies a condition ('Purged electrical enclosures in nonhazardous locations') but doesn't explicitly state the action or scope for all such enclosures, making the scope slightly ambiguous.

Verify by: Inspect the electrical enclosures in nonhazardous locations to confirm the presence and compliance of the purge hardware per 79K07491.

Verify by: Inspect the racks, panels, and enclosures against the requirements specified in KSC-SPEC-E-0002.

• The condition 'that will not be exposed to vibration or thermal cycling at space flight levels' is a design constraint, not a requirement on the fabrication process itself, and should be separated or clarified.

Verify by: Inspect the fabrication documentation and the resulting PCB against the requirements of IPC J-STD-001.

• The requirement implies a condition ('shall be fabricated in accordance with...') but doesn't specify *which* assemblies are subject to the condition, only that they 'will be exposed'.

Verify by: Inspect the fabrication records and the assemblies against the requirements of IPC J-STD-001ES.

• The requirement is too high-level; it delegates the entire selection process without specifying the criteria or how compliance will be verified.

Verify by: Inspect the component datasheets against the criteria listed in the System Requirements Document.

Verify by: Inspect the motor and generator documentation against the cited NEMA and NFPA standards.

• The requirement is too general; it needs to specify *how* compliance is determined or what the specific criteria are.

Verify by: Inspect the motor starter and controller against the specifications listed in <<document reference>>.

• The term 'environmental requirements' is too vague; specify the required standard or conditions (e.g., IP rating, temperature range).

Verify by: Inspect the enclosure documentation against the specified environmental standard.

• The term 'lot traceability' needs to be specified (e.g., what data must be traceable, and to what level of detail).

Verify by: Inspect the documentation package to confirm that all required traceability data for the fasteners is present and links the manufacturer lot to the final installation record.

• The requirement lacks a clear subject (what 'shall' does this permit?).

Verify by: Analyze the fastener torque data against the specified torque limits.

• The term 'validated process' is too vague; it needs a specific standard or criteria for validation.

Verify by: Inspect the engineering drawings to confirm the specified application process meets the defined validation standard.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation and test reports against the requirements of KSC-STD-E-0022.

Verify by: Inspect the facility systems and facility GSS documentation against KSC-STD-E-0012.

Verify by: Inspect the GS marking against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-E-0015.

• The requirement bundles two distinct identification/marking procedures based on equipment type.

Verify by: Inspect the marked GS and lifting equipment to confirm compliance with the specified standards.

Verify by: Inspect the ground piping systems to confirm identification and color-coding match KSC-STD-SF-0004.

Verify by: Inspect the cylinders to confirm labeling conforms to the requirements specified in CGA C-7.

• The requirement bundles two distinct marking requirements (general GS vs. lifting equipment) that should likely be separated for clarity.

Verify by: Inspect the GS and lifting equipment to confirm the maximum safe working load is conspicuously marked according to the specified standards.

Verify by: Inspect the cable assemblies to confirm label compliance against the KSC-E-166 standard.

Verify by: Inspect the labels against the documented requirements of KSC-STD-E-0015.

Verify by: Inspect the wire harness labels against the requirements specified in KSC-E-166.

Verify by: Inspect the labels to confirm they are heat-shrinkable sleeving and meet the specifications of SAE AMS-DTL-23053/5, Class 1.

• The requirement is too broad; it needs to specify *how* the marking shall be applied (e.g., engraved, etched, printed) and *where* it shall be located on the item.

Verify by: Inspect the specified parts, components, or assemblies to confirm the presence and legibility of the unique identifier.

• The term 'physically and functionally interchangeable' is too broad; it needs to define the scope of interchangeability (e.g., within a specific assembly or system context).

Verify by: Install two parts with the same part number into the specified system and verify that both operate without error.

• The phrase 'In the absence of a program- defined methodology' is too vague and needs a defined condition or trigger to be testable.

Verify by: Inspect the system configuration documentation to confirm the use of KNPR 8700.2 when no other methodology is defined.

• The subject 'GS' is not fully defined; it should be specified what 'GS' refers to.

Verify by: Inspect the documentation to confirm compliance with KNPR 8715.3.

• The requirement is too broad; it should specify which aspects of AFSPCMAN 91-710, Volume 3 are relevant to the GS.

Verify by: Inspect the GS documentation against the specified sections of AFSPCMAN 91-710, Volume 3.

• The phrase 'safety requirements of those facilities' is too broad and needs to specify which requirements or how they are determined.

Verify by: Inspect the GS documentation against the specified Facility Safety Standard Document.

• The types of caution and warning indications (e.g., visual, audible) are not specified.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation to confirm the defined types of caution and warning indications are present.

• The requirement is too high-level; it states a standard shall be used, but doesn't define what the system shall do based on that standard.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm compliance with the criteria specified in HF-STD-001.

Verify by: Inspect the GS documentation against the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.

• The requirement uses 'shall meet' which is too broad; it needs to specify *how* compliance is verified against the standard.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation against the controls listed in NPR 2810.1.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm that the specified documents were used to establish materials properties.

Verify by: Inspect the machined parts against the criteria specified in ASTM D7194.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm that the specified analytical methods are referenced when material properties are unavailable.

• The term 'signed by' is vague; it needs to specify the required signature type or process.

Verify by: Inspect the design drawings to confirm they bear the required signature from an authorized M&P engineer.

• The requirement implies a function ('shall be consulted') rather than a verifiable capability or constraint.

Verify by: Inspect the MAPTIS interface to confirm the presence of material codes and ratings for specified part types.

Verify by: Inspect the test procedure documentation to confirm adherence to NASA-STD-6001.

Verify by: Inspect the materials against the criteria specified in NASA-STD-6001, Test 1 or Test 10.

• The term 'test level' is undefined and needs to be specified.

Verify by: Inspect the material acceptance documentation to confirm the oxygen concentration and partial pressure meet the specified criteria.

• The term 'test level' is undefined and needs a specific value or reference.

Verify by: Inspect the material documentation to confirm the concentration relative to the specified test level and verify the retest/flammability classification.

• The condition 'passes the flammability test' needs to be quantified (e.g., pass criteria).

Verify by: Inspect the material certification documentation to confirm the flammability test was passed according to the specified standard.

• The requirement relies on an external, unspecified 'customer-specified' input, making it untestable without that input being defined.

Verify by: Inspect the test plan to confirm that the simulated environment matches the criteria defined in the customer specification document.

• The extent of changes in chemical and physical characteristics must be quantified (e.g., 'shall show a change of less than X% in property Y').

Verify by: Perform posttest analyses on the material and fluid and record the measured changes in chemical, physical, and mechanical properties against defined acceptance criteria.

Verify by: Inspect material certifications against the criteria specified in NASA-STD-6001, Test 17, and Test 1.

• The requirement bundles two distinct actions: conducting the assessment and documenting/approving the rationale.

Verify by: Review the assessment report and the documented safety rationale to confirm compliance with NASA-STD-6001 and M&P approval.

• The scope of 'ignition mechanisms identified by the oxygen compatibility assessment' is not explicitly defined in the requirement.

Verify by: Execute the configurational test plan against the list of mechanisms provided by the oxygen compatibility assessment and confirm adherence to ASTM MNL 36.

• The requirement is vague regarding *when* the review and approval must occur.

Verify by: Inspect the documentation to confirm the M&P organization's signature and approval date.

• The phrase 'shall be addressed' is too vague; it needs a measurable criterion for when or how the assessment is addressed.

Verify by: Review the system documentation to confirm that an oxygen compatibility assessment outcome is documented for every relevant case.

Verify by: Perform oxygen compatibility acceptance testing on the specified components at maximum design pressure for 10 cycles and inspect the results for compliance.

• The requirement lacks a clear action or condition for approval, making it unclear what the M&P organization must do or when the approval is required.

Verify by: Inspect documentation to confirm that the M&P organization has formally approved the specified material heat treatments.

Verify by: Inspect the material specifications against the design drawings to confirm the correct alloy is specified for corrosive environments.

Verify by: Inspect the process documentation and final parts against the requirements specified in ASTM A380 and ASTM A967.

• The requirement implies a process ('baked in accordance with SAE AMS 2759/9') but doesn't specify the required outcome or condition that must be met after baking, making verification incomplete.

Verify by: Inspect the process documentation to confirm that the baking procedure specified in SAE AMS 2759/9 was followed for the steel parts.

• Resistance to corrosion types must be quantified (e.g., specified exposure time, corrosion rate, or standard compliance).

Verify by: Inspect material certifications against the specified corrosion standard.

• The requirement bundles material selection criteria (corrosion resistance, SCC resistance) with a specific standard reference, but the scope of 'GS' is undefined.

Verify by: Inspect the material specification documentation for GS to confirm compliance with the stated material types and standard.

• The requirement lacks a specific method or standard to verify the exact alloy composition.

Verify by: Analyze a sample of the solder/plating using <<analytical instrument>> to confirm the lead content meets or exceeds 3%.

• The threshold 'at least 3% lead' is ambiguous; it should specify the acceptance criteria (e.g., 'shall not exceed 3% lead' or 'shall contain at least 3% lead').

Verify by: Perform lot sampling and analyze the samples to confirm the lead concentration meets the specified criteria.

Verify by: Inspect the elastomer material against the specifications detailed in MIL-HDBK-149.

• The requirement lacks specific, measurable criteria for 'design service life' and 'vendor-specified shelf life'.

Verify by: Subject the elastomers to accelerated aging tests and measure the degradation against the specified metrics.

• What specific tracking information must the cure date include?

Verify by: Inspect the elastomer batch to confirm the presence of a cure date and unique identifier.

• The requirement is too vague regarding what 'required elastomeric properties' means and how they are measured.

Verify by: Test the material at the specified low temperature and measure the <<specific elastomeric property>> against the defined acceptance criteria.

Verify by: Inspect material certifications against the referenced MIL-HDBK-17 volumes.

• The phrase 'to meet the intent of 6.4.15' is too vague; the specific acceptance criteria from 6.4.15 must be referenced or incorporated.

Verify by: Inspect the NDE report to confirm that the assessment criteria defined in 6.4.15 were applied to the manufacturing defects.

Verify by: Inspect the refractory concrete material and installation against the specifications detailed in KSC-SPEC-P-0012.

Verify by: Inspect the lubrication application against the criteria defined in KSC-SPEC-Z-0009.

• The requirement implies a process ('shall be identified') but lacks a clear, testable condition for identification.

Verify by: Inspect the material tracking documentation to confirm that materials meeting the criteria are labeled as limited-life items per section 4.2.2.2.

• The term 'each type of weld' is too vague; it needs to specify which types of welds must be addressed.

Verify by: Inspect the WPS documentation to confirm it covers all weld types listed in the referenced document.

• Qualification criteria for welders and welding operators are not specified.

Verify by: Inspect the personnel files to confirm the presence of current qualification documentation for each welder and welding operator.

• The term 'loss of function or improper performance' is too vague and needs to be defined or quantified.

Verify by: Review the design documentation to confirm the classification of welds based on the defined failure mode.

• The definition of 'improper performance' is not defined.

Verify by: Review the design documentation to confirm the classification criteria for Class C welds.

Verify by: Inspect the brazed joint against the standards defined in AWS C3.7M/C3.7.

Verify by: Inspect the brazing process documentation against the referenced AWS standards.

• The requirement bundles two distinct constraints (shear design vs. axial loading reliance) and lacks a clear pass/fail criterion for the design itself.

Verify by: Review the design documentation to confirm shear loading calculations and axial loading assumptions.

Verify by: Inspect the brazing process and documentation against the requirements specified in ASME BPVC VIII.

• The condition 'not exposed to vibration or thermal cycling' is a design constraint, not a verifiable requirement on the soldering itself; it should be separated or clarified.

Verify by: Inspect the soldered connections against the criteria defined in IPC J-STD-001.

• The term 'critical GS' is undefined and needs to be specified.

Verify by: Inspect the documentation to confirm that lot sampling was performed for the specified critical GS type.

Verify by: Inspect the heat treatment documentation against the specified SAE standards.

Verify by: Inspect the heat treatment records and material certifications against the specifications detailed in SAE AMS-H-81200.

Verify by: Inspect the heat treatment process and resulting parts against the specifications detailed in SAE AMS 2774.

• The term 'corrosive environments' is too vague; specify the environmental conditions (e.g., salt spray, chemical exposure) and duration.

Verify by: Expose the nickel-aluminum interface to the specified corrosive environment for the required duration and inspect for signs of corrosion.

Verify by: Inspect the plated component against the specifications detailed in SAE AMS 2460.

Verify by: Inspect the plated component against the specifications detailed in SAE AMS-QQ-P-416.

• The term 'critical GS' is undefined and needs to be specified.

Verify by: Section the first production forging and perform mechanical property testing according to <<standard>>.

• The term 'any change' is too broad; it needs to specify what constitutes a change that triggers a repeat.

Verify by: Review the change log against the procedure execution records to confirm repetition after parameter changes.

• The term 'retained' lacks a specified retention period or mechanism.
• The term 'made available' lacks a specified method or access mechanism.

Verify by: Inspect the system documentation and perform an access test to confirm data retention and availability.

Verify by: Inspect the castings against the specifications detailed in SAE AMS 2175.

• The exception 'with the exception of retesting' is unclear and needs to specify what retesting is excluded from compliance.

Verify by: Inspect the bonding process documentation against MSFC-SPEC-445, verifying the exclusion of the defined retesting procedure.

• The term 'documented process' is too vague; it needs to specify the required level of documentation or reference a specific standard.

Verify by: Inspect the bonding process documentation to confirm adherence to the specified contamination control procedure.

• The term 'cohesive failure modes' is not quantifiable for verification.

Verify by: Subject the bonded primary structural joints to shear loading at ambient temperature and inspect the failure mode.

Verify by: Inspect the fluid systems against the criteria defined in ISO 14952, Parts 1 through 6.

• The requirement is too vague; it states *what* must be specified, but not *that* it must be specified or *how* it must be specified.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation to confirm the cleanliness level and test method are documented.

• The cleanliness level of the flight hardware is not specified, preventing verification.

Verify by: Inspect the fluid system GS against the specified cleanliness level documented in <<Flight Hardware Cleanliness Specification>>.

Verify by: Inspect the crimping process and resulting connections against the criteria defined in NASA-STD-8739.4.

Verify by: Inspect the potting and molding process and resulting connectors against the requirements specified in KSC-STD-132.

• The requirement bundles a design constraint ('designed') with a fabrication constraint ('fabricated') based on multiple, unquantified criteria ('application, criticality, and operational environment').

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation and fabrication records to confirm compliance with KSC-GP-864 based on the documented application, criticality, and operational environment.

• The requirement bundles multiple environmental conditions (moisture, dust, chemicals, temperature extremes, mechanical stress, or vibration) into a single condition for applying the coating.

Verify by: Inspect the electronic circuitry to confirm conformal coating application where susceptibility is identified.

Verify by: Inspect the hardware coating against the requirements specified in NASA-STD-5008.

Verify by: Inspect the design documentation and material specifications to confirm compliance with MIL-STD-889.

• The exception clause ('except for nickel-plated surfaces') is stated twice, making the requirement redundant and slightly confusing.

Verify by: Inspect the sealed surfaces against the requirements specified in NASA-STD-5008.

• The term 'highly resistant' is subjective and needs a quantifiable metric or reference beyond the standard.

Verify by: Inspect the material selection documentation against the criteria defined in MSFC-STD-3029.

• The requirement should specify *which* personnel or *what* aspect of qualification/certification must comply with AIA/NAS 410.

Verify by: Inspect personnel records to confirm compliance with AIA/NAS 410.

• The requirement bundles multiple processes (electroplating, phosphating, pickling, passivation, or other processes) into a single condition, which should be separated or clarified.

Verify by: Inspect the process documentation to confirm that the specified heat treatment was applied following the listed processes.

• The trigger condition 'When required by the program' is too vague and needs a specific trigger or condition to be testable.

Verify by: Inspect the generated contamination control plan to confirm it adheres to the requirements of ASTM E1548 when the specified trigger condition occurs.