In aerospace, disposition approval for nonconformance reports (NCRs) is shared across quality, engineering, and sometimes the customer or regulatory design authority. The exact approvers depend on configuration control, design ownership, contract terms, and whether the disposition is use-as-is, rework to spec, repair, or scrap. Local procedures and delegations govern who can sign what.

Aerospace plants stuck in MRB firefighting can shift to prevention, but only with deliberate changes to data, process, and governance. This means treating MRB as a signal, tightening traceability, stabilizing routing and work instructions, and layering analytics and feedback loops on top of legacy MES/ERP/QMS rather than expecting a single system replacement to fix quality.

MRB cycle time is a critical indicator because it exposes how effectively a plant detects, evaluates, and disposes of nonconformances. Slow or variable MRB cycles drive hidden WIP, schedule risk, and compliance exposure. In regulated, brownfield environments, reducing MRB time requires cross‑functional ownership, robust data, and disciplined change control rather than tool changes alone.

In aerospace manufacturing, “scrap,” “rework,” “repair,” and “concession” describe very different quality dispositions with different technical, regulatory, and traceability implications. Misusing the terms can distort cost of poor quality, confuse airworthiness records, and create audit risk, especially in mixed legacy/MES environments.

In regulated manufacturing, rework means bringing a nonconforming product back into specification using the original, approved process (or a pre-validated variant). Repair means making a nonconforming product usable by adding, patching, or modifying it in a way that does not fully restore it to the original design intent or specifications, and typically reduces or limits its allowable use. The distinction has implications for risk, documentation, validation, and customer and regulatory approvals.