This is my first post (in any forum not related to cars/trucks). I'm a quality engineer by day, and an issue has come up at work that I'd sure be interested in hearing outside opinions on. When a nonconformance exists on a production part, we all know a nonconformance record should be created to control the nonconforming material. If the nonconformance is considered to be acceptable as is, a Use-As-Is disposition is proposed. In some instances, however, at my place of employment, instead of proposing a use-as-is disposition, the nonconforming part waits while a drawing change is processed to make the engineering definition match (or at least tolerate) the nonconforming characteristic. Then the nonconformance record is closed, cancelled, or dispositioned as "rework." I am opposed to this method, and I think it is not in accordance with the intent of the QMS; however, I cannot find anything that specifically states it can't be done. My take is that the part should be held to the released engineering at the time of its manufacture. Thoughts?