Risk Management

---
name: risk-management
description: "Use when the task is risk assessment, mitigation planning, or operational risk review rather than dispositioning an actual nonconformance or closing a CAPA. Assess and plan mitigation for aerospace quality risks per AS9100D operational risk management: compute FMEA risk priority numbers from severity, likelihood, and detection ratings, classify RPN bands, score the post-mitigation residual RPN from reduction credits, derive occurrence probability from production history, apply the 5x5 severity-likelihood risk matrix, and rank risks for mitigation priority with residual-risk acceptance checks. Produces the risk register entries, mitigation plan, and residual-risk verdicts that AS9100D 8.1.1 requires before production changes proceed. Trigger: risk management, risk assessment, mitigation planning, operational risk, RPN, FMEA, risk matrix, residual risk."
license: Apache-2.0
compliance: STANDARDS-REF
standards:
  - id: as9100
    reference-only: true
gated: false
domain: manufacturing-quality
pack: manufacturing-quality
compatibility: "agentskills.io SKILL.md; any SKILL.md host (Claude Code, Hermes, OpenClaw)"
metadata:
  domain: manufacturing-quality
  subdomain: as9100
  tags: [risk-management, risk-assessment, mitigation-planning, operational-risk, risk-priority-number, risk-matrix, residual-risk, fmea, likelihood-rating, detection-rating]
  version: 0.1.0
  author: Aero Agent Skills
---

# Risk Management (manufacturing-quality/as9100/risk-management)

Use when the task is AS9100D operational risk assessment and
mitigation planning: scoring potential failure modes before they
occur, building the risk register, prioritizing mitigation actions,
and demonstrating the residual risk is acceptable, rather than
reacting to a nonconformance that already happened.

## Domain quick reference

- FMEA risk priority number: RPN = S * L * D with severity,
  likelihood, and detection each rated 1-10. Worked: S = 8, L = 5,
  D = 3 gives RPN = 8 * 5 * 3 = 120; a better-detected mode with
  S = 6, L = 2, D = 2 gives 24. The product is nonlinear, so equal
  RPN steps are not equal risk steps.
- RPN bands: below 40 is low, 40-99 is medium, at or above 100 is
  high. Worked: RPN 25 is low, 60 is medium, 120 is high, and the
  boundaries are inclusive at the high side (100 is high, 40 is
  medium).
- Post-mitigation scoring: each action lowers severity, likelihood,
  or detection; the residual RPN is (S - dS) * (L - dL) * (D - dD).
  Worked: reductions of 2, 3, and 1 on S = 8, L = 5, D = 3 give
  (8 - 2) * (5 - 3) * (3 - 1) = 6 * 2 * 2 = 24.
- Risk reduction fraction: (before - after) / before. Worked: 120
  reduced to 24 is (120 - 24) / 120 = 0.8, an 80% risk reduction;
  a residual above the original gives a negative fraction, flagging
  an ineffective plan.
- Occurrence probability: occurrences / units produced grounds the
  likelihood rating in history. Worked: 3 failures in 10,000 units is
  3e-4 per unit, which maps to the low end of the likelihood scale.
- Residual risk acceptance: the residual RPN must meet the
  organization threshold. Worked: residual 24 against threshold 40 is
  acceptable; residual 60 against threshold 40 is not.
- 5x5 risk matrix: severity-likelihood product 15 or more is high, 6
  or more is medium, otherwise low. Worked: (4, 4) gives 16 = high,
  (3, 2) gives 6 = medium, (2, 2) gives 4 = low. The matrix ranks
  risks coarser than the RPN because it omits the detection axis.
- Mitigation priority: rank the register by RPN descending, ties
  broken by identifier, so the top entry is the first mitigation
  target. Worked: RPNs 120 (B), 50 (A), 20 (C) rank B, A, C.

## Workflow

1. Identify the failure modes for the process, product change, or
   operation under review and list them in the risk register with a
   unique identifier for each.
2. Rate severity, likelihood, and detection on the 1-10 FMEA scales
   and compute the RPN with risk_priority_number(); classify the band
   with risk_priority_classification() and the matrix band with
   risk_matrix_classification().
3. Ground the likelihood rating in evidence where history exists
   using occurrence_probability() from the production records.
4. Rank the register with rank_risks() to set mitigation-planning
   priority, and plan the highest RPN entries first.
5. Define mitigation actions with explicit reduction credits, score
   the residual RPN with mitigated_risk_priority_number(), and check
   the residual against the threshold with
   residual_risk_acceptable(); record the risk reduction fraction
   with risk_reduction_fraction() as close-out evidence.
6. Record the residual risk verdict and the responsible function's
   acceptance in the register, per AS9100D 8.1.1, before the change
   or process proceeds.

## Pitfalls

- Confusing this leaf with corrective-action: risk assessment is
  forward-looking (AS9100D 6.1 and 8.1.1) and scores potential
  failure modes; a CAPA reacts to an actual nonconformance with the
  8D workflow and root cause. A CAPA closure task routes to
  corrective-action, not here.
- Confusing with nonconformance-control: dispositioning a
  nonconforming part (rework, repair, scrap, use-as-is) is not risk
  assessment; the risk register covers future failure modes, the
  nonconformance record covers the part that already failed.
- Confusing with counterfeit-prevention: counterfeit scoring is one
  specific risk category with its own leaf and its own scoring
  scheme; general operational risk management covers all failure
  modes, counterfeit included.
- Confusing with supplier-control: supplier risk classification and
  delegated verification for external providers route to
  supplier-control; risk-management owns the full operational risk
  register across processes, not just procurement.
- Dropping the detection axis: RPN = S * L * D; reducing it to S * L
  misorders risks where poor detection lets a rare severe failure
  escape, which is exactly the case FMEA exists to catch.
- Claiming mitigation without re-scoring: a mitigation plan without a
  recomputed residual RPN is unverifiable; always run
  mitigated_risk_priority_number() and record the after value.
- Mixing the RPN bands with the matrix bands: the RPN bands (40 and
  100 on a three-axis product) and the 5x5 matrix bands (6 and 15 on
  a two-axis product) are different scales; never compare a band from
  one scheme with a band from the other.
- Accepting residual risk without evidence: the math check is only
  the numeric half; AS9100D 8.1.1 close-out requires the responsible
  function's recorded acceptance of the residual risk, with the
  reduction credits and the after-RPN on file.

## Behavior contract (gate 3)

The risk management math is exercised by the gate 3 contract test:
scripts/test_risk_management.py against
scripts/risk_management_logic.py (stdlib unittest, offline).
Run:
python3 scripts/test_risk_management.py

## Compliance

- Standards referenced, not reproduced: AS9100D clauses 6.1 (risks
  and opportunities) and 8.1.1 (operational risk) require risk
  assessment and mitigation planning for production operations; the
  RPN and risk-matrix practice above is common FMEA methodology,
  summary-only per standards-map.yaml.
- compliance: STANDARDS-REF, gated: false.