[sjburt]

This is exactly right, except that whenever there is a deviation there is a side channel conversation of "How can we fix this without needing to do all this paperwork, while still complying with the regulations?" between the factory floor, quality, and the engineers.

For example perhaps a rule says "you need to do an inspection when a panel is removed" so the engineers and quality will get together and say "what if we just have the technician remove a couple screws on the panel and peek under it, then the panel hasn't technically been removed so we don't need to do the inspection". And then it turns out they remove all but one screw and twist the panel completely away so it's basically open but not "removed". And, it's all there in the work instructions, exactly what they did, but if anyone asks they can say "oh no, we didn't REMOVE the panel". And of course, the actual work instructions are only viewable in some 1970s green screen terminal or an all-caps printout thereof that comes in a multi-binder acceptance packet.

[hef19898]

The process you decribe is what I would call non-comliant and a major finding in and of itself.

Also, none of those instruction live in some opaque system. Don't know where got that idea from.

[doubloon]

seems like the solution is to make the paperwork of approval more efficient.

this is kind of what github did for version control. it went from being this arcane chore to a fun little interface with colorful buttons.