9.4 Reviewing Client Requirements and Product-Form MT Specifications

9.4 Reviewing Client Requirements and Product-Form MT Specifications

Two of the five official Level III MT topic areas contain tasks that are contractual rather than technical: "interpret Codes, Standards, and Specification MT requirements" and "review client MT requirements." In practice these are the tasks that consume a working Level III's week. A purchase order arrives citing four documents of different vintage, two of which conflict, one of which was cancelled a decade ago, and the shop needs a technique sheet by Thursday.

Chapters 9.1 through 9.3 covered the three documents that dominate North American fabrication: ASME Section V Article 7 (how), ASTM E1444 and E709 and ISO 9934 (practice and guidance), and the construction codes that own acceptance criteria. This section covers the rest of the document landscape and the review process that turns it into one defensible technique.

---

The MT Specification Landscape Beyond the Big Three

---

A Structured Client Requirement Review

Treat requirement review as a documented engineering activity with an output artifact — a requirements matrix — rather than as reading a purchase order.

Step 1 — Build the document tree. List every document invoked, with revision and date: purchase order, drawing and its notes, prime-contractor process specification, industry standard, construction code, personnel standard. Record the invocation path, because a document invoked by another document is still binding.

Step 2 — Check currency and existence. Confirm each document is current and obtainable. Cancelled or superseded documents, and revisions that do not exist, are raised to the customer in writing before work starts.

Step 3 — Extract parameter by parameter. For each controlled parameter, record what each document says:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             EXAMPLE PARAMETER EXTRACTION (abridged requirements matrix)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Parameter          | ASME V Art 7   | ASTM E1444     | Customer Spec        |
|--------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------------|
| Dark adaptation    | >= 5 min       | >= 1 min       | silent               |
| Ambient white light| <= 2 fc        | <= 2 fc        | <= 1 fc              |
| UV-A at surface    | >= 1000 uW/cm2 | >= 1000 uW/cm2 | 1200 to 2500 uW/cm2  |
| Yoke lift check    | each day used  | 6 months       | each shift           |
| Residual field     | no number      | 3 G            | 2 G max              |
| Acceptance criteria| none (defers)  | per drawing    | per drawing + spec   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Step 4 — Apply the most-restrictive rule, parameter by parameter. Compliance is not a document-level choice; it is a parameter-level one. In the matrix above the compliant technique uses a 5-minute dark adaptation, a 1 fc ambient ceiling, a 1 200 to 2 500 µW/cm² UV-A window, a daily yoke check, and a 2 G residual limit. Choosing "we work to E1444" would silently violate three customer requirements.

Step 5 — Resolve genuine conflicts in writing. A conflict exists when two requirements cannot both be met — not merely when they differ. Where a customer specification demands something the code forbids, or two invoked documents are mutually exclusive, the Level III raises a written technical query and obtains a written disposition. Verbal resolution with a buyer is not a record.

Step 6 — Flow the result down. The resolved requirement set must reach the technique sheet, the inspector's work instruction, the process control logs, the report form, and — where work is subcontracted — the subcontract documents. A requirement that stops at the Level III's desk has not been implemented.

---

Evaluating Whether a Supplier Can Actually Meet Them

"Evaluate contractor/subcontractor MT capabilities" is the other half of requirement review, and it is answered with evidence, not assurances:

1. Written practice — does it exist, does it name a designated Level III, and does it meet the personnel standard the customer invoked (SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, or NAS 410)?
2. Procedures — are they qualified for the material, thickness, coating, and geometry in question, and approved by a Level III qualified in MT?
3. Personnel — current certifications in MT at the required level, current annual vision records, and documented training and experience hours.
4. Equipment — calibration certificates traceable to a national metrology institute, with intervals matching whichever document governs, plus the process-control logs (concentration, contamination, ring or shim checks, lighting).
5. Demonstration — for critical work, a witnessed technique demonstration on representative hardware rather than a paper review alone.
6. Surveillance — a re-inspection or blind-sample agreement check after award, not just at qualification.

---

Worked Scenario: Four Documents, One Technique Sheet

Scenario: A purchase order for overhauled landing-gear pistons invokes (a) the customer's own MT process specification at Revision H, (b) ASTM E1444, (c) a drawing note citing "MIL-STD-1949," and (d) NAS 410 for personnel. The customer specification requires 1 500 µW/cm² minimum UV-A and a 1 G residual field limit. The shop's existing procedure was written to ASTM E1444 with 1 000 µW/cm² and 3 G.

Level III analysis and actions:

1. MIL-STD-1949 is superseded by ASTM E1444. The Level III cannot certify compliance to a cancelled standard. The substitution is raised in writing, and the customer's written concurrence is retained with the job record — an unrecorded substitution is a finding waiting to happen.
2. The customer specification is more restrictive on two parameters. The technique sheet must adopt 1 500 µW/cm² and 1 G, not the E1444 floors. Note also that a 1 G residual limit is near the practical floor set by Earth's ambient field, so the demagnetization procedure must include East-West part orientation and a defined measurement location.
3. NAS 410 changes the personnel gate, not the technique. Near-vision and colour-perception requirements are stricter than the SNT-TC-1A baseline, and NAS 410 requires annual practical evaluation or documented technical audit of each inspector. The Level III verifies that every assigned inspector's file satisfies NAS 410 specifically, and that a Responsible Level III is designated.
4. Consumables are unspecified. Neither the drawing nor the purchase order names an AMS particle specification. The Level III selects and documents a qualified particle and vehicle specification rather than leaving the consumable uncontrolled, and confirms batch certifications are on file.
5. Output. One technique sheet, listing every governing document with revision, the most-restrictive value adopted for each parameter, the written customer disposition on the MIL-STD-1949 substitution, and the specific acceptance criteria taken from the drawing.