Find recurring causes across non-conformance reports

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

1. 1

   Planner, while planning

   Scope checkYes or no, with a probability

   Before work starts on a unit

   Does this report describe a nonconforming part or process output, rather than a safety observation, an audit note or a duplicate entry?

   Sees only: One report's header and description field

   Why: Keeps the coded set to real product non-conformances.

   00.30 and 0.601

   • Yes: 0.60 or higher→thenAccept
   • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60→thenEscalate to a strong model
   • No: below 0.30→thenSkip this unit
2. 2

   Before workers, before a task runs

   Small worker or strong modelA choice among options

   Before a task runs

   Does the report state a cause in its own cause field, or must the cause be read out of free-text discussion?

   Sees only: The cause field and description of one report

   Why: Reports with no stated cause are coded as such instead of being given one.

   • Cause field filled→thenAccept
   • Cause only in free text→thenEscalate to a strong model
   • No cause stated anywhere→thenMark unresolved
3. 3

   After workers, the judge checks

   Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

   After a worker answers

   Does the quoted wording from the report describe the cause category the worker assigned from the frozen taxonomy?

   Sees only: One quoted sentence, the assigned cause code and its taxonomy definition

   Why: Keeps coding consistent so that recurrence counts mean the same thing at every plant.

   00.50 and 0.851

   • Yes: 0.85 or higher→thenAccept
   • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85→thenEscalate to a strong model
   • No: below 0.50→thenReject and retry
4. 4

   Reconciler, while merging

   Conflict checkA choice among options

   While reconciling

   Do these two coded reports share the same part family, process step and defect type?

   Sees only: Two coded reports with their quotes

   Why: A recurrence is claimed only on a full match; near matches stay visible but unclaimed.

   • All three match→thenAccept
   • Two of three match→thenMark unresolved
   • One or none match→thenContinue
5. 5

   After workers, the judge checks

   Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

   After a worker answers

   Is the later report's occurrence date after the closure date recorded on the earlier report's corrective action?

   Sees only: The later report's date field and the earlier action's closure record

   Why: Confirms from dates on paper that a defect returned after an action was closed.

   00.50 and 0.851

   • Yes: 0.85 or higher→thenAccept
   • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85→thenEscalate to a strong model
   • No: below 0.50→thenReject and retry
6. 6

   Accountable person, before anything is settled

   Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

   Before anything is reported as settled

   Does the cluster include a defect that returned after a closed corrective action, or reports from more than one plant?

   Sees only: One recurrence cluster with member reports

   Why: The quality manager decides what is opened as a systemic issue and who owns it.

   Accountable: The quality manager owns which recurrences are opened as systemic issues and who is accountable for the corrective action.

   00.15 and 0.401

   • Yes: 0.40 or higher→thenAsk a person
   • Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40→thenAsk a person
   • No: below 0.15→thenAccept