Drawing Errors Drive 1 in 4 Engineering Changes: Why It Matters for Compliance, Costs, and Contracts
6 min read
By MLNavigator Team
// Framing update: position MLNavigator as MLN and broaden mission MLNavigator (MLN). MLN is your shop’s air-gapped drawing intelligence system — an offline AI appliance that reduces drawing-induced ECOs as part of a broader mission: lower Cost of Poor Quality (CoPQ), accelerate CMMC readiness, and protect contract eligibility.
Executive Summary
- Drawing errors are a leading cause of engineering change orders (ECOs), accounting for roughly 25% of all changes in regulated industries like aerospace.
- Each ECO triggered by a drawing issue consumes significant engineering capacity and represents 20-50% of tool costs in large projects, not including ripple effects like rework, delay, or audit exposure.
- MLNavigator pilots are cutting drawing-induced errors by 20–40% today, on track for 50%+ at Beta.
- ASQ's Cost of Quality framework shows how prevention, appraisal, and failure costs add up; many organizations report double-digit CoPQ. Source: ASQ Cost of Quality
- Differentiator: Air-gapped, offline deployment — no SaaS, no cloud exposure.
Understanding the Problem
Aerospace manufacturers live and die by the accuracy of their documentation. Engineering drawings are the central point of truth between design, manufacturing, inspection, and certification. And yet, even now, these drawings remain a major source of error. A PTC white paper found that manufacturers tolerate engineering change order rates of 25% or higher caused by modeling errors and CAD drawing errors in typical production environments. These aren't theoretical mistakes — they're missing tolerances, incorrect note structures, outdated revisions, or ambiguous dimensions. In the context of MRO, one bad drawing can pause an entire line while engineering, quality, and inspection try to reconcile what was actually intended. In our business plan, we identify a shared root cause: fragmented, unverified technical data across PLM, ERP, and shop-floor systems — driving both CoPQ and compliance failure. CMMC deadlines make this more urgent: without Level 2, many MROs will be locked out of DoD contracts once rules are enforced (), DFARS 252.204-7021 CMMC requirements, and Federal Register CMMC Program rulemaking). National Defense Magazine reports few DIB companies are ready for CMMC compliance. Source: https://www.cadservices.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/white-paper-model-based-engineering-three-commitments-en_CAD.pdfThe Impact of Drawing-Induced Change Orders
For MROs:
- Rework: If machining starts before the issue is caught, you're redoing labor — often under tight turnarounds.
- Inspection rejections: If QA finds the error, the part may get flagged, scrapped, or re-routed, delaying shipment.
- Schedule risk: When changes occur late, documentation may not reach all stakeholders in time.
- Audit risk: Gaps in drawing control and traceability trigger findings under AS9100D/AS9102 and increase CMMC Level 2 non-conformance exposure.
For Investors:
- Margins leak every time a drawing-induced ECO hits the system. With ECOs consuming one-third to one-half of engineering capacity and representing 20-50% of tool costs, even low-frequency events can stack up fast.
- Compliance exclusion risk: Poor drawing control compounds compliance gaps, risking exclusion from defense programs that require CMMC Level 2 and strong AS9100D discipline — not just scrap costs.
Sidebar: Terminology Glossary (for non-engineers)
- ECO: Engineering Change Order. A formal record of changes made to a technical document or design.
- NCR: Non-Conformance Report. A formal notice that something produced doesn't meet requirements.
- FAI: First Article Inspection. A regulated review process for the first unit made to a new design.
- Drawing Compliance: Ensuring that drawings meet all standard requirements before release.
- CMMC: Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification. Required for defense suppliers; without Level 2, no new DoD contracts.
Data Snapshot
From PTC White Paper:Root Causes of Engineering Changes
Drawing errors: 25%
Process errors: 22%
Design iterations: 20%
Supplier issues: 15%
Other/Unclassified: 18%
Source: Quality Magazine (2022)
The MLNavigator Difference: MLN (air-gapped, offline)
Drawing errors typically slip through because QA teams are overloaded and standards are enforced inconsistently. Engineers rely on tribal knowledge or outdated checklists, and shop floors often catch the error before quality teams do. MLNavigator automates that check offline. Every drawing uploaded into MLN is scanned in real time for:- Real-time compliance scan against AS9100, ITAR, and FAA
- Air-gapped appliance: Mac Studio or on-prem cluster, no cloud/SaaS
- Weekly LoRA fine-tuning from your own data
- Audit-ready logs automatically generated for clause coverage and traceability
Operational Impact
Fewer ECOs → fewer NCRs → faster approvals → audit-ready by default. Delivered offline via a secure appliance. Your data never leaves the building.Investor Impact
- Sticky, non-optional infrastructure in regulated supply chains due to compliance alignment and audit readiness.
- ROI model: Engineering capacity savings × 25–50% reduction from drawing-error prevention = meaningful, compounding savings.
Visual Comparison: Drawing Error Flow (Traditional vs. MLNavigator)
Legacy Flow
Engineer drafts drawing
Drawing issued
Shop finds error
ECO issued
QA investigates
Schedule slips
MLNavigator Flow
Engineer drafts drawing
Uploads to MLNavigator
System flags error
Engineer corrects
Drawing issued clean
No ECO required
That difference is everything. When errors are caught at the source, they never have a chance to multiply.
CTAs & Engagement
For MROs
Upload a sample drawing into MLN — see your errors flagged instantly.For Investors
Model 12-month savings and audit readiness risk with us.Universal
Share this statReferences
- PTC White Paper. Model-Based Engineering: Three Commitments. https://www.cadservices.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/white-paper-model-based-engineering-three-commitments-en_CAD.pdf
- ASQ Cost of Quality — Overview of prevention, appraisal, and failure costs across industries
- Business Wire - CyberSheath CMMC Readiness Study — Study on CMMC readiness
- DoD CMMC Program Official Overview
- DFARS 252.204-7021 CMMC Requirements
- Federal Register CMMC Program Rulemaking
- NIST SP 800-209 Security Guidelines for Supply Chain
- GAO 20-339 Weapon Systems Cybersecurity
- Cloud Security Alliance - Mitigating Security Risks in RAG LLM Applications
- ArXiv LoRA Technique Reference