IAQG register makes 9102 edition identity a first-article control

A generic 9102 label drops edition evidence

The direct answer in IAQG's public standards register is that 9102 is the Aerospace First Article Inspection Requirement and that the current issued references shown for the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe are not textually identical labels or dates. The register lists AS9102 Rev C, SJAC 9102 Rev C, and EN 9102:2024 with their respective issue dates.

A quality record should therefore preserve issuer or sector, standard identifier, revision or edition, issue date, applicable customer or contract basis, facility and program context, internal adoption, controlled copy, form or data definition, reviewer, approval, and supersession. The label 9102 alone does not show which issued document governed the work or which customer-specific additions applied.

Regional issue dates should not rewrite history

The register shows AS9102 Rev C dated June 28, 2023, SJAC 9102 Rev C dated December 15, 2023, and EN 9102:2024 dated January 2025. Those dates belong to edition control. They do not establish when every supplier, customer, contract, site, or product was required to transition, and they should not be used to replace the standard reference retained with an earlier inspection record.

Systems should separate publication, contractual applicability, organizational adoption, customer direction, implementation, first use, and retirement. A migration workflow can identify affected forms, integrations, training, supplier requirements, open records, and approvals while preserving the earlier edition for historical evidence. Silent relabeling damages both auditability and the ability to explain an inspection decision.

The public register is status evidence, not the licensed requirement

IAQG states that printed versions of its register are uncontrolled and that the website contains the current register. That makes the register a useful official source for status and edition identity. It does not reproduce the full requirements, customer clauses, purchase-order terms, engineering definition, or acceptance criteria needed to execute or evaluate a first-article inspection.

A platform should link the public status source to the lawfully accessed controlled standard and the organization-specific procedure without copying protected text into an unsupported public summary. Buyers should test source lineage, access control, revision alerts, impact assessment, record locking, form versioning, and export. The system should make unknown applicability visible rather than assigning a compliant badge from a selected standard.

First-article evidence remains product and process specific

The title identifies an aerospace first-article inspection requirement, but a register row does not prove that a particular first article was required, complete, accepted, or still representative after a change. The operational record needs product and drawing identity, configuration, manufacturing process and location, characteristics, results, nonconformities, changes, approvals, and the applicable standard and customer context.

This analysis does not reproduce or interpret AS9102, SJAC 9102, EN 9102, customer requirements, or acceptance criteria. It does not determine whether a first-article inspection is required or whether any record is adequate. Organizations need the authorized standard, contract and customer sources, product and process evidence, and qualified engineering, manufacturing, quality, customer, certification, and legal judgment.

Enterprise buyer test

Translate this change into the exact population, record type, workflow stage, decision owner, effective date, and evidence that could be affected. Ask current or prospective providers to demonstrate the named workflow with representative data and an exception—not a polished feature tour. Record what official documentation establishes, what a provider states, what the team observes, and what remains unresolved.

A defensible review also identifies the dependency outside the product. Authority interpretation, policy configuration, data quality, integrations, human judgment, approval rights, release governance, training, and retained evidence may remain customer or service responsibilities. The evaluation should preserve those boundaries instead of treating a technology claim as the complete operating model.

What we will watch next

Quality Systems Index will watch the named source and affected market records for later evidence that changes status, scope, availability, implementation timing, workflow consequence, or the limits of the initial report. A later announcement does not silently overwrite this dated account; the change ledger preserves the sequence.