Raw extractor output for aero-cou1, verbatim, before any edit.
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-5   Pack: nasa-7009b 0.5.0

==========================================================================
SHEET: Assessment Summary
==========================================================================
     A1  Unit of Assurance — Assessment Summary

     A2  Project Name
     B2  COU Name
     C2  COU Description
     D2  Profile
     E2  Device Class
     F2  Model Risk Level
     G2  Assurance Level
     H2  Standards Reference
     I2  Assessor Name
     J2  Assessment Date
     K2  Source Document
     L2  Has UQ?

     A3  HPT Blade Conjugate Heat Transfer Analysis — Take-off Transient (COU1)
     B3  Peak HPT blade metal temperature prediction during take-off transient for preliminary blade design screening
     C3  A conjugate heat transfer (CHT) computational model predicts peak metal temperature on a high-pressure turbine (HPT) blade during take-off transient conditions, used for preliminary screening of blade designs against the 1150K temperature limit. Model must predict peak surface temperature within +/-50K.
     D3  Complete
     E3  N/A
     F3  MRL 3
     G3  Medium
     H3  NASA-STD-7009B
     I3  Dr. A. Patel
     J3  Date of this assessment (YYYY-MM-DD)
     K3  decision_rationale.pdf; risk_assessment_memo.pdf; cou_definition.docx; credibility_assessment_narrative.docx; cascade_rig_temperature_data.csv; mesh_convergence_study.csv; sensitivity_study_turbulence_intensity.csv; cfx_solver_settings.txt; review_board_minutes_2026Q1.txt
     L3  Yes

==========================================================================
SHEET: Instructions
==========================================================================
     A1  UofA Excel Template — Instructions (NASA-STD-7009B)

     A3  What is this?
     B3  This workbook captures a credibility assessment for one Context of Use (COU) under V&V 40 + NASA-STD-7009B. Fill it out, then run `uofa import --pack nasa-7009b` to convert it to a machine-verifiable evidence package.

==========================================================================
SHEET: Model & Data
==========================================================================
     A1  Model & Data — What you modeled and compared against

     A2  Entity Type
     B2  Name
     C2  Identifier / URI
     D2  Description
     E2  Version
     F2  Source

     A3  Requirement
     B3  HPT Blade Peak Temperature Limit Requirement
     D3  Peak metal surface temperature must not exceed the 1150K Inconel 718 creep-rupture allowable during take-off transient, with model prediction accurate within +/-50K for preliminary blade design screening decisions.
     E3  Version number (optional)
     F3  Where this came from (optional)

     A4  Model
     B4  HPT Blade CHT Model (ANSYS CFX 2025 R1, SST k-omega, partitioned CHT coupling)
     D4  Conjugate heat transfer CFD model of HPT blade using RANS SST k-omega turbulence with 1-equation fluid-solid coupling for peak temperature prediction.

     A5  Dataset
     B5  Cascade Rig 48-Point Thermocouple Dataset
     D5  48-point K-type thermocouple rake measurements at cascade exit plane across full blade span, used for output comparison validation.

     A6  Dataset
     B6  Mesh Convergence Study Dataset
     D6  Grid convergence data at mid-span (three refinement levels) and incomplete tip-region mesh data.

     A7  Dataset
     B7  Sensitivity Study Dataset
     D7  Parametric sensitivity results for turbulence intensity, inlet temperature profile, OTDF, and cooling flow ratio perturbations.

==========================================================================
SHEET: _Lists
==========================================================================
     A1  Profile
     B1  Device Class
     C1  Model Risk Level
     D1  Assurance Level
     E1  Standards Reference
     F1  Entity Type
     G1  Has UQ
     H1  Pass/Fail
     I1  Factor Level (0-5)
     J1  Factor Status
     K1  Decision Outcome
     L1  Has UQ (COU-level)
     M1  Evidence Type

     A2  Minimal
     B2  Class I
     C2  MRL 1
     D2  Low
     E2  ASME-VV40-2018
     F2  Requirement
     G2  Yes
     H2  Pass
     I2  0
     J2  assessed
     K2  Accepted
     L2  Yes
     M2  ValidationResult

     A3  Complete
     B3  Class II
     C3  MRL 2
     D3  Medium
     E3  NASA-STD-7009B
     F3  Model
     G3  No
     H3  Fail
     I3  1
     J3  not-assessed
     K3  Not accepted
     L3  No
     M3  ReviewActivity

     B4  Class III
     C4  MRL 3
     D4  High
     E4  FDA-2023-CMS
     F4  Dataset
     H4  Inconclusive
     I4  2
     J4  scoped-out
     K4  Conditional
     M4  ProcessAttestation

     B5  Category A
     C5  MRL 4
     E5  Custom
     H5  N/A
     I5  3
     J5  not-applicable
     M5  DeploymentRecord

     B6  Category B
     C6  MRL 5
     I6  4
     M6  InputPedigreeLink

     B7  Category C
     I7  5

     B8  Category D

     B9  Category E

    B10  Other

==========================================================================
SHEET: Validation Results
==========================================================================
     A1  Validation Results — What you found when you tested the model

     A2  Result Name
     B2  Type
     C2  Identifier / URI
     D2  Description
     E2  Compares To
     F2  Has UQ?
     G2  UQ Method
     H2  Metric Value
     I2  Pass / Fail

     A3  MMS Code Verification (CHT coupling)
     B3  ValidationResult
     C3  Stable URI or local ID
     D3  Method of Manufactured Solutions benchmarks for conjugate heat transfer coupling covering 1D conduction, 2D convection-diffusion, coupled CHT with rotation, CHT with variable properties, and CHT with turbulence closure.
     E3  Analytical manufactured solutions
     F3  No
     G3  If Yes, describe the method
     H3  errors below 0.01 percent
     I3  Pass

     A4  Mid-span Grid Convergence Study
     B4  ValidationResult
     D4  Grid convergence study at blade mid-span using three refinement levels (1.6M, 3.2M, 6.4M cells, refinement ratio r=1.26); tip region not assessed.
     E4  GCI / Richardson-extrapolation across mesh levels
     F4  No
     H4  GCI 0.8 percent at mid-span
     I4  Inconclusive

     A5  Cascade Rig Output Comparison
     B5  ValidationResult
     D5  48-point cascade thermocouple measurements compared against CFD peak-temperature predictions, with supplementary thermal paint hot-spot location comparison.
     E5  Cascade rig 48-point thermocouple rake and thermal paint data
     F5  Yes
     G5  Measurement uncertainty per ISO/IEC Guide 98-3 (k=2)
     H5  mean absolute error 1.8 percent, maximum 4.2 percent, hot spot within 2mm
     I5  Pass

     A6  Monte Carlo UQ on Cascade Comparison
     B6  ValidationResult
     D6  Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation with Latin Hypercube Sampling on cascade boundary condition inputs; not yet extended to engine COU peak temperature prediction.
     E6  N/A
     F6  Yes
     G6  Monte Carlo / Latin Hypercube Sampling (500 samples, 15 uncertain parameters)
     H6  500 samples, 15 parameters
     I6  Inconclusive

     A7  Sensitivity/Robustness Study
     B7  ValidationResult
     D7  Parametric sensitivity study on turbulence intensity, inlet temperature profile, OTDF, and cooling flow ratio, documenting peak temperature response.
     E7  Baseline nominal Run #47 conditions
     F7  No
     H7  peak temp delta up to 2.6% for +/-30K inlet temperature shift
     I7  Pass

==========================================================================
SHEET: Credibility Factors
==========================================================================
     A1  Credibility Factors — V&V 40 + NASA-STD-7009B Assessment

     A2  Complete profile only. Assess each relevant factor: set Required Level and Achieved Level.

     A3  Factor Type
     B3  Category
     C3  Required Level
     D3  Achieved Level
     E3  Acceptance Criteria
     F3  Rationale
     G3  Factor Status
     H3  Linked Evidence

     A4  Factor name (pre-filled, do not edit)
     B4  Grouping (pre-filled)
     C4  Credibility goal for this factor (0-5)
     D4  Level achieved by evidence (0-5)
     E4  Goal and basis for the required level
     F4  Brief justification (esp. if achieved < required)
     G4  assessed / not-assessed / scoped-out / not-applicable
     H4  URI of validation result that supports this factor (optional)

     A5  Software quality assurance
     B5  Verification — Code
     C5  2
     D5  2
     E5  Commercial solver with ISO 9001 certification, regression testing, and version-controlled release process reviewed by analyst of record.
     F5  Solver has ISO 9001 certification, regression testing suite, and version control; vendor release notes reviewed. Board concurred Level 2.
     G5  assessed

     A6  Numerical code verification
     B6  Verification — Code
     C6  3
     D6  3
     E6  MMS benchmarks pass with error below 0.01 percent across all coupled physics cases.
     F6  Five MMS benchmark cases spanning conduction, convection-diffusion, rotation, variable properties, and turbulence closure all passed with errors below 0.01%.
     G6  assessed

     A7  Discretization error
     B7  Verification — Calculation
     C7  3
     D7  1
     E7  GCI below acceptable threshold at all critical locations (including tip) using refinement ratio r>=1.3 per Celik et al./Roache.
     F7  Mid-span GCI of 0.8% achieved with monotonic convergence, but the tip region—where peak temperature actually occurs—has not been assessed for mesh convergence, a gap explicitly flagged by the credibility board.
     G7  assessed

     A8  Numerical solver error
     B8  Verification — Calculation
     C8  1
     D8  1
     E8  Iterative residuals converge to target (1e-6 RMS) or numerical error bounded within discretization budget with documented justification.
     F8  Residuals converged to 4.2e-7–8.8e-7 against a 1e-6 target at 2341 iterations; no dedicated iterative error study was conducted, accepted by the board as a partial assessment at Level 1.
     G8  assessed

     A9  Use error
     B9  Verification — Calculation
     C9  2
     D9  2
     E9  Model setup performed by experienced analyst following standard procedure with independent second-analyst review and configuration control.
     F9  Lead analyst with 12+ years experience followed standard CHT workflow; second analyst reviewed BCs and mesh quality; all files under Git configuration control.
     G9  assessed

    A10  Model form
    B10  Validation — Model
    C10  3
    D10  3
    E10  Turbulence and CHT coupling model selection justified for the flow regime with known limitations documented.
    F10  SST k-omega with partitioned CHT coupling justified for attached flow over turbine airfoils at mid-span; acknowledged limitation for tip-gap separated flow regions.
    G10  assessed

    A11  Model inputs
    B11  Validation — Model
    C11  3
    D11  3
    E11  Inputs traceable to calibrated instruments and certified material data.
    F11  Inlet profiles from engine test Run #47 (60-point traverse) and material properties from MMPDS-18 and vendor-certified Inconel 718 lot data, all traceable.
    G11  assessed

    A12  Test samples
    B12  Validation — Comparator
    C12  2
    D12  2
    E12  Adequate number/spatial coverage of measurement points with characterized instrument uncertainty.
    F12  48-point full-span TC rake with characterized uncertainty (3.4–7.9K, k=2) plus supplementary thermal paint data.
    G12  assessed

    A13  Test conditions
    B13  Validation — Comparator
    C13  3
    D13  3
    E13  Test conditions controlled and measured with calibrated instrumentation matching engine-representative regime.
    F13  Cascade rig operated at engine-representative Re and Mach (within 5%), instruments ISO 17025 calibrated, flow held within +/-2% of target.
    G13  assessed

    A14  Equivalency of input parameters
    B14  Validation — Assessment
    C14  2
    D14  2
    E14  Geometric, flow, and turbulence parameters of the test article match the engine configuration within documented tolerances.
    F14  Geometry matched via CMM scan within sub-mm tolerance; Reynolds/Mach matched within 5%; turbulence intensity matched within stated uncertainty.
    G14  assessed

    A15  Output comparison
    B15  Validation — Assessment
    C15  3
    D15  3
    E15  Mean error below 2 percent against acceptance criterion for preliminary screening (Oberkampf 2010 metric).
    F15  Quantitative comparison across 48 points shows mean error 1.8%, max 4.2%, with hot-spot location matching within 2mm, meeting the stated <2% acceptance criterion.
    G15  assessed

    A16  Relevance of the quantities of interest
    B16  Applicability
    C16  2
    D16  2
    E16  QoI must directly represent the safety/design-limiting parameter and be measurable both computationally and experimentally.
    F16  Peak metal temperature directly maps to the 1150K creep-rupture allowable used for the design decision, and is measurable via both CFD and TC/thermal paint methods.
    G16  assessed

    A17  Relevance of the validation activities to the COU
    B17  Applicability
    C17  3
    D17  1
    E17  Validation activities must cover the physical mechanisms governing the QoI across the COU envelope, including film cooling effects at the hot-spot region.
    F17  The cascade rig used for validation is not film cooled while the engine blade has 47 film cooling holes governing hot-spot temperature; the cascade also does not reproduce annular secondary flows, tip-gap leakage, or rotor-stator unsteadiness, leaving a material applicability gap for the peak-temperature QoI at MRL 3.
    G17  assessed

    A18  Data pedigree
    B18  NASA — Capability
    C18  3
    D18  3
    E18  Input data traceable to ISO 17025 calibrated instruments and certified material records under document control.
    F18  Calibration certificates on file under document control; material lot numbers traceable to vendor heat treatment and chemistry certifications.
    G18  assessed

    A19  Development technical review
    B19  NASA — Capability
    C19  3
    D19  3
    E19  Independent quarterly review by a board including a reviewer not reporting to the analysis group, with prior action items closed.
    F19  Quarterly independent board review with dedicated independent reviewer; all prior Q4 2025 action items closed before current review.
    G19  assessed

    A20  Development process and product management
    B20  NASA — Capability
    C20  2
    D20  2
    E20  Configuration management and change control records document all modifications between releases.
    F20  Git-based configuration management with documented change control from v2.0 to v2.1 (inlet BC update, mesh densification).
    G20  assessed

    A21  Results uncertainty
    B21  NASA — Results
    C21  3
    E21  Probabilistic UQ (e.g., Monte Carlo) required on engine COU peak temperature prediction at MRL 3.
    F21  Monte Carlo/LHS UQ was completed for the cascade comparison (500 samples, 15 parameters) but not extended to the engine COU peak temperature prediction, which NASA-STD-7009B Factor 5.4 requires at MRL 3.
    G21  not-assessed

    A22  Results robustness
    B22  NASA — Results
    C22  2
    D22  2
    E22  Sensitivity study conducted across key input parameter classes with documented response.
    F22  Parametric sensitivity study identified inlet temperature profile shift as the most sensitive parameter (near 1:1 transmission) with documented results.
    G22  assessed

    A23  Use history
    B23  NASA — Capability
    C23  2
    D23  2
    E23  Prior successful use of the same or closely related model version documented over multiple applications.
    F23  Prior version used across 3 engine variants for 6 years (47 runs) with no known adverse outcomes; current version retains same solver/turbulence/CHT approach.
    G23  assessed

==========================================================================
SHEET: Decision
==========================================================================
     A1  Decision — The credibility judgment

     A2  Decision Outcome
     B2  Decision Rationale
     C2  Criteria Set
     D2  Decided By
     E2  Decision Date

     A3  Accepted
     B3  Model accepted for preliminary screening use at MRL 3 with conditions: designs predicted to exceed 1150K by more than 50K are rejected at concept review without physical test, while designs within +/-50K are flagged marginal and must proceed to engine ground test; model output is not used for final blade life assessment or certification-facing analysis at this MRL. Conditions for MRL 4 readiness include tip-region mesh convergence study, probabilistic UQ on engine COU peak temperature, and resolution of the film cooling validation gap.
     C3  Auto-filled from Assessment Summary
     D3  Dr. A. Patel, Propulsion Credibility Board
     E3  2026-03-20
