Raw extractor output, verbatim, before any review-pass edit.
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-5   Pack: nasa-7009b 0.5.0
This file exists so the review-pass delta is measurable. Do not edit.

==============================================================================
SHEET: Assessment Summary   (dims A1:L3)
==============================================================================
     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  FOD Tire Puncture Regression Model (Aircraft Tire Penetration Risk Assessment)
     B3  Predict aircraft tire FOD penetration depth to support probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of a ground-hold decision
     C3  A multiple linear regression model relating FOD particle velocity and orientation to tire penetration depth was developed after a near-miss FOD event embedded a metal particle in an aircraft tire's inner pressure bladder; the model output feeds a PRA to determine whether the aircraft's ground hold should be lifted.
     D3  Complete
     E3  N/A
     F3  MRL 3
     G3  Medium
     H3  NASA-STD-7009B
     I3  K.L. Johnson
     J3  Date of this assessment (YYYY-MM-DD)
     K3  NTRS-20200002832-Johnson-2020.pdf
     L3  Yes

==============================================================================
SHEET: Instructions   (dims A1:B3)
==============================================================================
     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   (dims A1:F5)
==============================================================================
     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  Worst-case FOD penetration depth must remain below critical threshold
     D3  The model must predict the likelihood that a worst-case 0.2 g steel FOD particle at 1000 kph and 50°C penetrates the tire's strengthening plies to a critical depth of 0.16 cm, to support the decision on continuing the aircraft ground hold.
     E3  Version number (optional)
     F3  Where this came from (optional)

     A4  Model
     B4  Multiple linear regression penetration-depth model
     D4  Standard multiple linear regression model with velocity, orientation, and velocity-by-orientation interaction terms, implemented in commercial statistical software and delivered as a password-protected Excel calculator.

     A5  Dataset
     B5  DOE FOD impact test matrix
     D5  Replicated design-of-experiments test matrix (18 planned tests, 15 completed) varying FOD particle velocity and orientation, with penetration depth measured as the response.

==============================================================================
SHEET: _Lists   (dims A1:M10)
==============================================================================
     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   (dims A1:I7)
==============================================================================
     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  Independent duplicate regression analysis
     B3  ValidationResult
     C3  Stable URI or local ID
     D3  Reviewer performed a duplicate regression analysis using competitive/independent commercial statistical software to confirm the model.
     E3  Independent duplicate analysis using different commercial statistics software
     F3  No
     G3  If Yes, describe the method
     H3  Quantitative result if applicable
     I3  Pass

     A4  Output comparison to test data (residual analysis and tolerance bound)
     B4  ValidationResult
     D4  Model predictions were graphically compared to test data with full residual analysis, and a statistical tolerance bound was computed for worst-case penetration depth.
     E4  DOE test data (18-run matrix, 15 completed)
     F4  Yes
     G4  Residual error standard deviation and 99% reliability/95% confidence statistical tolerance bound
     H4  Residual std dev = 0.0084 cm; 99%/95% tolerance bound = 0.128 cm vs. critical depth 0.16 cm
     I4  Pass

     A5  Conceptual validation via SME/team review
     B5  ReviewActivity
     D5  Model predictions and calculator were presented to the test team, anomaly team leads, and an independent statistician/engineer for conceptual validation of engineering plausibility.
     E5  SME engineering judgment and test performance
     F5  No
     I5  Pass

     A6  Independent technical review of model and analysis
     B6  ReviewActivity
     D6  Independent reviews of the statistical analysis, model, and findings were performed by three statistical modelers and more than three engineering practitioners.
     E6  n/a
     F6  No
     I6  Pass

     A7  Waived validation against real-world-system data
     B7  ValidationResult
     D7  Validation of model predictions against independent real-world-system (RWS) data or confirmation test runs was not performed due to unavailable RWS data and schedule/cost constraints; waiver approved by the Technical Authority.
     E7  RWS data (not available)
     F7  No
     I7  Inconclusive

==============================================================================
SHEET: Credibility Factors   (dims A1:H23)
==============================================================================
     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  4
     D5  4
     E5  Commercial statistics software used for regression analysis must be well-established/well-verified.
     F5  Analysis relied on an established, well-verified commercial statistics package rather than custom code, reducing software-quality risk.
     G5  assessed

     A6  Numerical code verification
     B6  Verification — Code
     C6  4
     D6  4
     E6  Independent duplicate analysis using different software must reproduce an identical model.
     F6  A reviewer independently reproduced the regression analysis in different software and obtained an identical model, confirming correct execution of the method.
     G6  assessed

     A7  Discretization error
     B7  Verification — Calculation
     F7  The model is a statistical multiple linear regression fit to test data with no spatial/temporal discretization scheme; no mesh convergence or discretization-related evidence is present in the corpus.
     G7  not-assessed

     A8  Numerical solver error
     B8  Verification — Calculation
     E8  Solution/output verification is expected only where analysis complexity could introduce mathematical error.
     F8  Solution verification was explicitly waived because the model and regression technique were judged too simple for meaningful numerical/solver error to arise.
     G8  scoped-out

     A9  Use error
     B9  Verification — Calculation
     C9  3
     D9  3
     E9  Model setup and data must be independently inspected to confirm correct construction.
     F9  An independent inspection of the modeling process and underlying data was performed as the mechanism for confirming correct model setup.
     G9  assessed

    A10  Model form
    B10  Validation — Model
    C10  3
    D10  3
    E10  Model predictions must pass conceptual validation by subject-matter experts as physically reasonable.
    F10  The linear regression form (velocity, orientation, interaction terms) was presented to and accepted by engineering SMEs as representing the physics of FOD impact penetration.
    G10  assessed

    A11  Model inputs
    B11  Validation — Model
    C11  3
    D11  3
    E11  Measurement uncertainty on key inputs (velocity, orientation) must be shown inconsequential relative to the effect size.
    F11  Input velocity and orientation were measured with calibrated instrumentation (high-speed video, laser rangefinder) and their uncertainty was shown to be negligible relative to the modeled effect.
    G11  assessed

    A12  Test samples
    B12  Validation — Comparator
    C12  3
    D12  3
    E12  A replicated DOE test matrix must provide sufficient samples to characterize the velocity/orientation response.
    F12  A replicated design-of-experiments matrix (18 planned, 15 completed) was used to give statistically adequate coverage of the velocity/orientation factor space.
    G12  assessed

    A13  Test conditions
    B13  Validation — Comparator
    C13  3
    D13  3
    E13  Test environmental conditions (temperature, humidity) must be controlled and documented within specification limits.
    F13  Test environment was controlled to defined temperature/humidity limits consistent with the tire's operational envelope.
    G13  assessed

    A14  Equivalency of input parameters
    B14  Validation — Assessment
    C14  3
    D14  3
    E14  Model must be verified across the domain of tested input factors and shown to bound the RWS worst-case conditions.
    F14  The model's input domain was confirmed to match the tested factor ranges, and the held-constant test factors were shown to represent worst-case (bounding) conditions relative to the RWS.
    G14  assessed

    A15  Output comparison
    B15  Validation — Assessment
    C15  4
    D15  4
    E15  Predicted worst-case penetration depth plus statistical uncertainty bound must remain below the 0.16 cm critical depth.
    F15  Quantitative comparison of model output to test data produced a best estimate and a 99%/95% tolerance bound both below the 0.16 cm critical penetration depth.
    G15  assessed

    A16  Relevance of the quantities of interest
    B16  Applicability
    C16  4
    D16  4
    E16  The QoI (penetration depth relative to the 0.16 cm critical threshold) must directly address the catastrophic-failure risk question feeding the PRA.
    F16  The modeled quantity of interest is penetration depth relative to the exact critical threshold that determines catastrophic tire failure, directly tied to the safety decision.
    G16  assessed

    A17  Relevance of the validation activities to the COU
    B17  Applicability
    C17  1
    D17  1
    E17  Validation against independent RWS or confirmation-test data was formally waived by the Technical Authority in lieu of visual/statistical comparison to the same test data used for calibration.
    F17  No independent validation against real-world-system data or held-back confirmation runs was performed; the investigation team and Technical Authority accepted this waiver, limiting the relevance/coverage of validation evidence to the COU envelope.
    G17  assessed

    A18  Data pedigree
    B18  NASA — Capability
    C18  3
    D18  3
    E18  Model input/calibration data must originate from a well-run, controlled test program with traceable measurements.
    F18  The model's calibration data came from a well-run, controlled test program, though real-world-system data was not available for independent traceability.
    G18  assessed

    A19  Development technical review
    B19  NASA — Capability
    C19  3
    D19  3
    E19  Independent technical review by qualified statisticians and engineers must be performed with no major unresolved findings.
    F19  Multiple independent statistical and engineering reviewers examined the model and analysis, finding only minor issues that were corrected or judged inconsequential.
    G19  assessed

    A20  Development process and product management
    B20  NASA — Capability
    C20  4
    D20  4
    E20  Model development must follow a rigorous, documented, formal experimental-design and analysis process with configuration control.
    F20  A formal DOE-based development process was rigorously followed and documented, with the regression model kept under configuration control.
    G20  assessed

    A21  Results uncertainty
    B21  NASA — Results
    C21  4
    D21  4
    E21  Result uncertainties must be fully and quantitatively characterized statistically.
    F21  Result uncertainty (residual error, tolerance bounds) was quantitatively characterized through the regression analysis itself.
    G21  assessed

    A22  Results robustness
    B22  NASA — Results
    C22  4
    D22  4
    E22  Sensitivities to all model parameters, including interaction effects, must be captured quantitatively.
    F22  The regression model quantitatively captures sensitivities to velocity, orientation, and their interaction, demonstrating robustness to parameter variation.
    G22  assessed

    A23  Use history
    B23  NASA — Capability
    C23  3
    D23  3
    E23  The modeling methodology (standard multiple linear regression in vetted software) must have an established track record with only minor changes for this application.
    F23  The methodology itself (multiple linear regression in a vetted commercial statistics package) is well-established; only the specific regression model is new, and this change was rated minor by the team.
    G23  assessed

==============================================================================
SHEET: Decision   (dims A1:E3)
==============================================================================
     A1  Decision — The credibility judgment

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

     A3  Accepted
     B3  The model's predictions (worst-case penetration depth 0.098 cm, 99%/95% tolerance bound 0.128 cm) remained below the 0.16 cm critical depth, credibility ratings met the predeclared requirements across most factors, and independent duplicate analysis plus SME/technical review found no significant issues; validation against independent RWS or confirmation-test data was explicitly waived by the investigation team and approved by the Technical Authority as an accepted condition due to unavailable RWS data and schedule/cost constraints.
     C3  Auto-filled from Assessment Summary
     D3  Investigation team / Technical Authority (per K.L. Johnson, NASA NESC)
     E3  2019-10-14

