1.2% moisture instead of 1.0%. Use as is. Six similar decisions in eighteen months—nobody connected the dots. NCMR workflows that surface patterns across dispositions.

Excipient arrived at 1.2% moisture. Specification said NMT 1.0%. Friday afternoon, production waiting, next supplier shipment two weeks away.
Engineering said 1.2% wouldn't affect the formulation. Quality noted this supplier had been marginal before. Manufacturing wanted to run. Decision: use as is.
Three months later, stability data showed accelerated degradation. Root cause: moisture in the excipient batch. Eighteen months of commercial product recalled. FDA asked: "Why did you accept out-of-specification material?"
This was the sixth moisture exceedance from this supplier in eighteen months. Nobody had connected the dots. Each decision looked reasonable in isolation. Together, they revealed a supplier who couldn't meet the specification.
One use-as-is decision might be reasonable. Twenty use-as-is decisions for the same specification should trigger a different question: is the specification realistic, or are we slowly normalizing deviation?
Use-as-is decisions require cross-functional review. QA: does acceptance comply with our quality system? Engineering: will this material perform acceptably? Manufacturing: any handling considerations? Regulatory: any notification required?
Which suppliers generate the most nonconformances? Which materials require the most use-as-is decisions? Are concession rates increasing?
Trend analysis surfaces patterns that should trigger process improvements or specification reviews.
Which NCMR approved the use? Which batches incorporated the nonconforming material? Which products shipped to which customers?
If a problem emerges later, trace forward from the nonconformance to all affected products.
