A FAIR should clearly identify the exact drawing revision used to build and inspect the first article. That revision must be checked against the purchase order, customer requirements, engineering release status, and any approved deviations or waivers. Do not treat a FAIR as revision-independent evidence. If the drawing revision changes, the organization normally needs a documented impact assessment and, where applicable, a full or partial FAI for the affected characteristics, processes, materials, tooling, or software-controlled operations.
The FAIR must match the controlled engineering basis
In an AS9102-style FAIR, the drawing number and revision are not administrative details. They define the technical baseline for the inspection. The ballooned drawing, characteristic list, inspection results, and forms should all point to the same controlled revision unless a documented customer or engineering instruction says otherwise.
If the part was authorized to be built to an older revision, the FAIR can only support that authorized build condition. It should not be reused as evidence for a later revision without reviewing the differences. A later revision may change dimensions, notes, materials, special processes, acceptance criteria, or embedded requirements that are easy to miss if the review only looks at visible geometry.
When a revision changes
A drawing revision change should trigger a controlled review, not an automatic reset or automatic carryover. The practical question is what changed and whether the change affects fit, form, function, manufacturability, inspection, special processes, or flowed-down requirements.
Common outcomes include:
- No FAI update required: only if the change is confirmed to have no effect on the part, process, or inspection requirements, and that rationale is documented according to the site’s procedure and customer expectations.
- Partial FAI required: when only selected characteristics, notes, materials, processes, or operations are affected. The FAIR should identify the changed items and provide inspection evidence for those items.
- Full FAI required: when the change is broad, the prior baseline is unreliable, the manufacturing process changed substantially, or customer or program rules require a new full submission.
The decision is site- and customer-specific. AS9102 provides the general structure, but customer flowdowns, purchase order terms, delegated authority, and internal procedures often determine how conservative the organization must be.
Do not mix revisions inside the record
One common failure mode is a FAIR package where the form lists one revision, the ballooned drawing shows another, the ERP job references a third, and the supplier certificate uses an older print. That creates a traceability problem even if the part itself is acceptable.
At minimum, the FAIR package should make these items consistent or explicitly reconciled:
- purchase order and contract revision requirements;
- released drawing and model revision from PLM or document control;
- ballooned drawing revision;
- characteristic accountability and inspection results;
- routing, traveler, or MES work order revision;
- special process certifications and material certifications;
- approved deviations, waivers, concessions, or engineering changes.
If there is a legitimate reason for a mismatch, such as an approved build-to order against an earlier revision, that authorization should be included or referenced. Informal explanations are not a substitute for controlled evidence.
Brownfield system issues are common
In many plants, drawing revision control spans PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, supplier portals, and document control systems. These systems often do not update at the same time or with the same level of validation. A released drawing in PLM may not be reflected in ERP planning, a shop traveler may still carry an older revision, or a supplier may be working from a cached file.
This is why revision handling in FAIRs usually needs procedural controls as well as software controls. Integrations can reduce transcription errors, but they do not remove the need to validate the source of truth, control superseded documents, and preserve the historical revision used for the actual build. Full system replacement is usually unrealistic in regulated brownfield environments because of validation cost, integration complexity, downtime risk, qualification burden, and long equipment and program lifecycles.
If the wrong revision was used
If the part was manufactured or inspected to the wrong drawing revision, the FAIR should not be quietly corrected after the fact. The issue should be handled through the organization’s nonconformance, engineering review, or MRB process as applicable. The disposition may allow use, require reinspection, require rework, require customer approval, or require rejection. The FAIR should reflect the controlled outcome, not obscure the revision error.
The safest practical rule is simple: record the revision actually used, verify that it was authorized, assess any revision changes formally, and keep the FAIR package traceable to the engineering baseline that governed the build.