Arc Skills / Standards and development assurance
Review an ECSS compliance finding and its proposed closure
This task reviews a specific ECSS compliance finding against its criterion, correction and effectiveness evidence. Arc Skills returns a closure recommendation that distinguishes a revised document from proof that completed work met the requirement.
Use this skill
Use Arc Skills to review proposed closure of this exact ECSS finding. Preserve the controlled criterion, finding text and affected configuration.
Inputs:
- Finding ID, controlled ECSS edition, clause text and tailoring.
- Root cause, correction, corrective action and authority path.
- Revised artifacts, raw results, retests and configuration records.
Return a closure table with criterion, implementation, effectiveness, remaining gap and recommended reviewer disposition. Do not call a draft revision or promised retest completed evidence.What you provide and what you get
| What you have | How it is used | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| Finding and controlled criterion | Defines the specific unmet obligation | Closure test |
| Corrected procedure/design | Shows what changed | Implementation status |
| Raw data and re-verification | Tests affected product and effectiveness | Open or supported disposition |
A revised limit does not repair an old test record
Illustrative engineering example.
Synthetic finding F-12 says procedure TP-2 omitted an acceptance limit required by the project-selected ECSS verification basis. Revision TP-3 adds the limit; report TR-2 records the earlier execution but has raw readings with no comparison to the new limit.
| Closure element | Supplied record | Assessment | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure correction | TP-3 includes approved limit | Document omission corrected | Confirm controlled approval of TP-3 |
| Affected prior execution | TR-2 raw data retained; no evaluation to limit | Original test remains unassessed | Re-evaluate raw data if valid, otherwise justify retest |
| Recurrence control | Procedure checklist updated | Possible preventive action | Show checklist use and review of similar procedures |
TP-3 addresses the document defect, but F-12 also affects the acceptability of a completed verification result. A reviewer needs to know whether TR-2’s original setup and calibrated measurements are sufficient for a valid retrospective comparison. If not, a targeted retest may be necessary.
This page does not invent the ECSS clause or a pass/fail result: the controlled criterion, limit and raw values must be supplied. A recommended “keep open” disposition preserves the finding until the affected evidence and any approved corrective-action route are assessed by the project authority.
Close the original deficiency, not the action item
- Restate the finding as criterion, product/configuration and unmet evidence.
- Separate correction of the instance from measures meant to prevent recurrence.
- Test whether existing raw data or a new execution shows the criterion was met.
- Check approval and effectiveness records before recommending closure.
Questions about this task
Can old raw data be re-evaluated?
Yes if the original setup, instrument records and data cover the newly explicit criterion and the project accepts that method. Otherwise identify the retest gap.
Does a revised procedure close the finding?
It closes the document defect only. The affected product result and recurrence concern still require review where they formed part of the original finding.
Sources and further reading
- ECSS-E-ST-10-02C Rev.1: Official scope and downloadable controlled verification standard.
ECSS-E-ST-10-02C Rev.1 establishes verification scope; the example’s F-12 criterion is synthetic and must be replaced by the project-controlled clause.