Raw extractor output for aero-cou2, 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 CHT — Cruise Steady-State (COU2)
     B3  Cruise steady-state peak temperature and creep-life prediction for HPT blade
     C3  Conjugate heat transfer CFD model re-purposed from COU1 (take-off transient, MRL 3, Accepted) to predict peak metal temperature and integrated creep damage during cruise steady-state operation, supporting the 25,000-hour blade service life certification margin decision.
     D3  Complete
     E3  N/A
     F3  MRL 4
     G3  High
     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; cruise_uq_study.csv; sensitivity_study_cruise.csv; cascade_reuse_traceability.txt; cfx_solver_settings.txt; review_board_minutes_cruise_2026Q2.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  Cruise Peak Temperature and Creep-Life Acceptance Criterion
     D3  Peak metal temperature at cruise must be <= 1080K with 95 percent confidence, and integrated creep damage over 25,000 cruise hours must be <= 0.7 Miner fraction.
     E3  Version number (optional)
     F3  Where this came from (optional)

     A4  Model
     B4  HPT Blade Conjugate Heat Transfer CFD Model (HPT-CRUISE-v2.1)
     D4  ANSYS CFX 2025 R1 steady-state CHT model, SST k-omega turbulence closure, branched from COU1 take-off configuration (HPT-TOFF-v2.1) with operating-point changes only.

     A5  Dataset
     B5  cascade_rig_temperature_data.csv (48-TC rake, reused from COU1)
     D5  Cascade rig thermocouple rake data designed and instrumented for take-off Reynolds (1.20e6), reused as validation anchor for cruise (0.85e6) predictions.

     A6  Dataset
     B6  cruise_uq_study.csv
     D6  Monte Carlo / Latin Hypercube probabilistic uncertainty propagation of five input parameters on cruise peak metal temperature.

     A7  Dataset
     B7  sensitivity_study_cruise.csv
     D7  Parametric sensitivity sweep of turbulence intensity, inlet temperature, cooling flow ratio and mission duty cycle on cruise peak temperature and creep damage.

==========================================================================
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 (inherited from COU1)
     B3  ValidationResult
     C3  Stable URI or local ID
     D3  Method of manufactured solutions benchmark verification of the ANSYS CFX solver, inherited unchanged from COU1 since no model form or numerics changes were made for cruise.
     E3  Analytical MMS benchmark solutions
     F3  No
     G3  If Yes, describe the method
     H3  <0.01 percent error
     I3  Pass

     A4  Mesh Convergence at Mid-Span (inherited from COU1)
     B4  ValidationResult
     D4  Grid Convergence Index study at mid-span, the location of the cruise peak temperature (pressure-side trailing edge), inherited from COU1.
     E4  Multiple mesh refinement levels
     F4  No
     H4  GCI 0.8 percent
     I4  Pass

     A5  Cascade Rig Validation Reuse for Cruise Assessment
     B5  ValidationResult
     D5  Take-off-condition cascade rig data (48-TC rake, Re 1.20e6) reused to attempt validation of cruise CFD predictions (Re 0.85e6), representing a 41 percent Reynolds regime mismatch and a Nu-Re scaling exponent shift from ~0.8 to ~0.7.
     E5  cascade_rig_temperature_data.csv (take-off conditions)
     F5  No
     H5  41 percent Reynolds mismatch (cascade 1.20e6 vs cruise 0.85e6)
     I5  Fail

     A6  Cruise Probabilistic UQ (Monte Carlo Propagation)
     B6  ValidationResult
     D6  1500-sample Latin Hypercube Monte Carlo propagation of five uncertain input parameters (inlet T, inlet P, cooling flow, turbulence intensity, material k) on predicted cruise peak metal temperature.
     E6  Acceptance criterion peak temperature <= 1080K at P95
     F6  Yes
     G6  Monte Carlo with Latin Hypercube Sampling
     H6  mean 1063.2K, std 8.1K, P95 1078.4K
     I6  Pass

     A7  Cruise Sensitivity Study
     B7  ValidationResult
     D7  Parametric sweep of turbulence intensity, inlet temperature, cooling flow ratio, and mission duty cycle on peak temperature and Miner-fraction creep damage.
     E7  Baseline nominal cruise case (Run #63 conditions)
     F7  No
     H7  Tin+20K off-nominal case yields creep damage 0.73 Miner fraction, exceeding the 0.70 limit
     I7  Inconclusive

==========================================================================
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 certified under ISO 9001 quality process, meets MRL 4 required Level 2.
     F5  SQA evidence inherited unchanged from COU1; solver is ANSYS CFX 2025 R1 under ISO 9001 quality management, assessed at Level 2 meeting the MRL 4 required Level 2.
     G5  assessed

     A6  Numerical code verification
     B6  Verification — Code
     C6  3
     D6  3
     E6  MMS benchmarks pass with error below 0.1 percent, meets MRL 4 required Level 3.
     F6  Method of manufactured solutions benchmarks inherited from COU1 passed at less than 0.01 percent error, satisfying the required Level 3.
     G6  assessed

     A7  Discretization error
     B7  Verification — Calculation
     C7  3
     D7  3
     E7  GCI at the cruise QoI location (mid-span) below a defined threshold, meets MRL 4 required Level 3.
     F7  Mesh convergence (GCI 0.8 percent) established at mid-span in COU1 is directly applicable because the cruise peak temperature also occurs at mid-span, meeting the required Level 3.
     G7  assessed

     A8  Numerical solver error
     B8  Verification — Calculation
     C8  2
     D8  2
     E8  Iterative residuals converge below 1.0e-6 target, meets MRL 4 required Level 2.
     F8  Solver residuals for the cruise run converged to 2.1e-7 through 5.4e-7 against a 1.0e-6 target, meeting the required Level 2.
     G8  assessed

     A9  Use error
     B9  Verification — Calculation
     C9  2
     D9  2
     E9  Same analyst and documented procedure under configuration control, meets MRL 4 required Level 2.
     F9  Model setup was performed by the same analyst using the same documented procedure and the branched model is under Git configuration control, meeting the required Level 2.
     G9  assessed

    A10  Model form
    B10  Validation — Model
    C10  3
    E10  Required Level at MRL 4: Level 3.
    F10  The SST k-omega model form was validated at take-off Reynolds (1.20e6) but the cruise regime (Re 0.85e6) is transitional-turbulent with a different Nu-Re scaling exponent, so model form credibility at cruise conditions has not been assessed; the Board recorded this Not Assessed rather than a low level score.
    G10  not-assessed

    A11  Model inputs
    B11  Validation — Model
    C11  3
    D11  3
    E11  Boundary conditions and material properties obtained from measured engine test data, assessed at Level 3.
    F11  Cruise-specific inlet total temperature/pressure profiles come from engine test Run #63 and material properties were re-evaluated at cruise temperature range, assessed at Level 3.
    G11  assessed

    A12  Test samples
    B12  Validation — Comparator
    C12  2
    D12  2
    E12  Instrumentation coverage and sample count adequate and unchanged from prior accepted COU, assessed at Level 2.
    F12  The same 48-thermocouple cascade rake and sample count from COU1 are reused, unchanged, assessed at Level 2.
    G12  assessed

    A13  Test conditions
    B13  Validation — Comparator
    C13  3
    E13  Required Level at MRL 4: Level 3.
    F13  No test conditions representative of the cruise operating point exist for this blade geometry, so the Board determined Test Conditions credibility cannot be assessed for cruise using the take-off cascade data.
    G13  not-assessed

    A14  Equivalency of input parameters
    B14  Validation — Assessment
    C14  3
    E14  Required Level at MRL 4: Level 3.
    F14  Equivalency between validation experiment inputs and cruise COU inputs cannot be established due to the 41 percent Reynolds mismatch, so the factor is recorded Not Assessed rather than a misleadingly low level.
    G14  not-assessed

    A15  Output comparison
    B15  Validation — Assessment
    C15  3
    E15  Required Level at MRL 4: Level 3.
    F15  The only output-comparison data available (48-TC cascade rake) is from take-off Reynolds conditions and does not constitute an output comparison at cruise, so this factor cannot be assessed for the cruise COU.
    G15  not-assessed

    A16  Relevance of the quantities of interest
    B16  Applicability
    C16  3
    D16  3
    E16  QoI directly measures the certification-facing safety/performance concern, assessed at Level 3.
    F16  Peak metal temperature and integrated creep damage are directly relevant to the 25,000-hour blade life certification decision, assessed at Level 3.
    G16  assessed

    A17  Relevance of the validation activities to the COU
    B17  Applicability
    C17  3
    E17  Required Level at MRL 4: Level 3.
    F17  NASA-STD-7009B guidance requires the validation experiment to sample the operating envelope of the COU, and the cascade regime lies outside the cruise envelope, so the validation is not relevant and this factor is Not Assessed.
    G17  not-assessed

    A18  Data pedigree
    B18  NASA — Capability
    C18  3
    D18  3
    E18  Input data traceable to a known-quality source equivalent to the prior accepted COU, assessed at Level 3.
    F18  Cruise-condition input data traces to engine test Run #63 with pedigree equivalent to that already accepted for COU1, assessed at Level 3.
    G18  assessed

    A19  Development technical review
    B19  NASA — Capability
    C19  3
    D19  3
    E19  Independent technical review conducted by a qualified independent reviewer, meets MRL 4 required Level 3.
    F19  Two review cycles were conducted by the Propulsion Credibility Board with independent reviewer S. Thompson prior to this assessment, assessed at Level 3.
    G19  assessed

    A20  Development process and product management
    B20  NASA — Capability
    C20  3
    D20  3
    E20  Configuration management and change control documented for all modifications from the prior baseline, meets MRL 4 required Level 3.
    F20  Configuration is managed via Git with a dedicated branch and change control records documenting all modifications from the take-off baseline, meeting the required Level 3.
    G20  assessed

    A21  Results uncertainty
    B21  NASA — Results
    C21  3
    D21  2
    E21  Probabilistic UQ on outputs required at Level 3 per MRL 4 Table A-1.
    F21  A 1500-sample Monte Carlo/LHS propagation quantified input-parameter uncertainty (std 8.1K) but explicitly excludes model-form uncertainty from the cascade-to-cruise applicability extrapolation, so achieved Level 2 falls short of the required Level 3.
    G21  assessed

    A22  Results robustness
    B22  NASA — Results
    C22  2
    D22  2
    E22  Sensitivity study on key input parameters completed, meets MRL 4 required Level 2.
    F22  A sensitivity study identified inlet temperature as the most-sensitive parameter (dT_peak/dT_in ~1.0) and characterized mission-profile sensitivity, meeting the required Level 2.
    G22  assessed

    A23  Use history
    B23  NASA — Capability
    C23  2
    D23  1
    E23  Prior successful use history at the operating point or in a directly analogous regime required at Level 2.
    F23  The model has no prior cruise-specific use history; the 6-month take-off use history from COU1 does not transfer directly to cruise credibility, so achieved Level 1 falls short of the required Level 2.
    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  Not accepted
     B3  The Propulsion Credibility Board determined the model is NOT ACCEPTED at MRL 4 for cruise creep-life certification analysis because five credibility factors (Model Form, Test Conditions, Equivalency of Input Parameters, Output Comparison, and Relevance of Validation to COU) cannot be assessed at cruise operating conditions with the existing evidence package, all sharing a single root cause: the cascade rig validation was designed for take-off Reynolds (1.20e6) and does not extend to the cruise Reynolds regime (0.85e6, 41 percent lower), a regime change from fully-turbulent to transitional-turbulent flow. Probabilistic UQ (8.1K std) reflects input uncertainty only and does not bound the unquantified model-form uncertainty from this extrapolation. The model may continue to be used for preliminary comparative studies at cruise with non-certification caveats, but is not credible for certification-facing creep life analysis until a dedicated cruise-regime validation campaign (cascade re-instrumentation, engine ground-test, or scaled rig) is completed.
     C3  Auto-filled from Assessment Summary
     D3  Dr. A. Patel, Propulsion Credibility Board
     E3  2026-04-10
