Manage a nonconformance raised at a space test centre under ECSS-Q-ST-20-07C clause 5.8.2, inside the ECSS-Q-ST-10-09 nonconformance system: categorize the anomaly major or minor from safety effect, exceeded article limit, violated requirement or invalidated conditions; derive its reporting deadline and disposition authority; decide whether the run owes a partial or a full retest; and test the proposed disposition against the customer agreement it needs. Use when a test-centre anomaly, an ano...
Scanned 9/27/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ashfordeOU/aero-agent-skills --skill q2007-nc-control --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Q2007 Nc Control?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ashfordeou-q2007-nc-control)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: q2007-nc-control
description: "Manage a nonconformance raised at a space test centre under ECSS-Q-ST-20-07C clause 5.8.2, inside the ECSS-Q-ST-10-09 nonconformance system: categorize the anomaly major or minor from safety effect, exceeded article limit, violated requirement or invalidated conditions; derive its reporting deadline and disposition authority; decide whether the run owes a partial or a full retest; and test the proposed disposition against the customer agreement it needs. Use when a test-centre anomaly, an anomaly report log or a disposition proposal has to be adjudicated before campaign close-out. Trigger: ecss, q-st-20-07c, q-st-10-09, test-centre-nonconformance, test-anomaly-report, nonconformance-disposition-authority, test-retest-scope-decision, article-overstress-ratio, nonconformance-close-out."
license: Apache-2.0
compliance: STANDARDS-REF
standards:
- id: ecss
reference-only: true
gated: false
domain: space-systems
pack: space-systems
compatibility: "agentskills.io SKILL.md; any SKILL.md host (Claude Code, Hermes, OpenClaw)"
metadata:
domain: space-systems
subdomain: ecss
tags: [ecss, q-st-20-test-centre-scope, q2007-nc-control, test-centre-nonconformance, test-anomaly-report, nonconformance-disposition-authority, test-retest-scope-decision, nonconformance-close-out]
version: 0.1.0
author: Aero Agent Skills
---
# ECSS Test Centre — Control of Nonconformances (space-systems/ecss/q2007-nc-control)
Use when the task is the nonconformance-control step of ECSS-Q-ST-20-07C
clause 5.8.2 — deciding what an anomaly discovered at the test centre makes
the centre owe: how fast it must be reported, who owns its disposition, and
how much of the run has to be done again.
## Domain quick reference
- A test-centre anomaly has two distinguishable subjects and the control
path differs: the test article, and the test itself. A facility fault that
left the article untouched still invalidates the conditions and still
forces a retest; an article defect found during test is dispositioned
through the customer's nonconformance system whatever the facility did.
- Severity is derived, not declared. Personnel or facility safety, a level
taken past the article's stated limit, a violated specified requirement or
invalidated test conditions each make the anomaly major on their own. The
derivation matters because the deadline and the authority both hang off it.
- The reporting clock starts at detection, not at the end of the run or at
the shift handover. A major anomaly reaching the customer after the run is
finished has already cost the customer the decision it was owed.
- Disposition authority follows severity: a minor anomaly is dispositioned by
the centre's quality function, a major one by the customer's review board.
Use-as-is and repair leave the article different from its specification, so
on a major anomaly both need the customer's recorded agreement.
- Retest scope is a separate decision from disposition and is often forgotten.
A level past the article's limit puts the whole article's state in question
and forces the run again; invalidated conditions force the affected phases
again, and force the whole run only when every phase is affected.
- A record marked closed while a finding is still open is itself a finding.
Close-out of the campaign is a statement that no anomaly is unresolved, so
it is graded on the set, not on each record in isolation.
## Workflow
1. Validate the anomaly record: identifier, detection hour, reporting hour
and proposed disposition are all required; a report timed before its
detection is an input error.
2. Categorize severity from the effect flags, deriving overstress from the
applied level against the article limit when both are given rather than
trusting a declared flag.
3. Derive the reporting deadline and the disposition authority from that
severity, and grade the elapsed hours against the deadline with a named
tolerance at the boundary.
4. Decide the retest scope: full for an overstressed article, full when every
phase was invalidated, partial for the named affected phases, none when
neither applies. Refuse to guess when conditions were invalidated but no
phase is named.
5. Check the disposition against the permitted set and against the customer
agreement a major use-as-is or repair requires.
6. Confirm an owed retest is either the disposition itself or recorded as
performed; an owed retest that is neither is a finding.
7. Aggregate the campaign: count major, minor, open, late and retest-owed
records, and permit close-out only when the finding list is empty.
## Pitfalls
- Trusting a declared overstress flag when the applied and limit levels are
both in the record. Derive it, and treat a level exactly on the limit as
within the limit rather than past it.
- Letting the reporting clock start at the end of the run. The deadline is
measured from detection, so an anomaly detected early in a long campaign
can be late before the run is over.
- Dispositioning a major anomaly use-as-is on the centre's own authority.
The centre can propose it; only the customer's review board can agree it.
- Closing a record because the disposition was agreed while the retest it
forced has not been performed. Disposition and retest scope are separate
decisions and both have to be discharged.
- Repeating only the phase where the anomaly was noticed when the article
itself was taken past a limit. The article's state, not the phase boundary,
is what governs the scope in that case.
- Widening a reporting deadline to make an exact-equality case pass. An
equality at the limit is a representation question, handled by the
tolerance inside the comparison; the deadline stays as specified.
## Behavior contract (gate 3)
The severity derivation, deadline and authority mapping, timeliness grading,
retest-scope decision, disposition validation and campaign aggregation are
exercised by the gate 3 contract test:
scripts/test_q2007_nc_control.py against
scripts/q2007_nc_control_logic.py (stdlib unittest, offline). Run:
python3 scripts/test_q2007_nc_control.py
## Compliance
- ECSS standards are freely downloadable (ESA); cite the source and
paraphrase per standards-map.yaml.
- compliance: STANDARDS-REF, gated: false.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!