Compressed-Air Root-Cause Analysis, Failure Mechanism & Corrective-Action Engineering

COMPRESSED-AIR ROOT-CAUSE ANALYSIS, FAILURE MECHANISM & CORRECTIVE-ACTION ENGINEERING

It requires chronology and evidence from alarms, maintenance, failed parts, operating trends, environment and recent changes; separation of symptom, mechanism and root cause; testing competing hypotheses using measurements, inspection and manufacturer limits; and closure through corrective/preventive actions. These source controls are expanded here without inventing unsupported causal certainty.

That legacy identity remains separately preserved.

Provisional new-series slug: /compressed-air-engineering/root-cause-analysis-failure-mechanism-corrective-action/ | CTA: Investigate My Compressor Failure

A failed part is evidence of what happened. root-cause analysis must explain why the failure mechanism developed, why existing controls did not prevent or detect it, and what change will stop recurrence

Its purpose is not to produce a convenient story; it is to build and test an evidence-supported causal model. A bearing can fail through lubrication starvation, contamination, misalignment, overload, thermal damage, electrical effects, installation error or combinations of conditions. Replacing the bearing closes the repair; it does not automatically close the cause.

The page distinguishes observation, symptom, failed component, physical failure mechanism, contributing condition, root/system cause and corrective action. Confidence is explicit. Unsupported hypotheses remain labelled as hypotheses, and missing evidence remains visible rather than being silently converted into certainty.

1 — Incident Identity

RCA Governance Foundation: govern incident identity as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

2 — Asset Identity

RCA Governance Foundation: govern asset identity as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

3 — Rca Trigger

RCA Governance Foundation: govern RCA trigger as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

4 — Business Consequence

RCA Governance Foundation: govern business consequence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

5 — Safety Consequence

RCA Governance Foundation: govern safety consequence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

6 — Quality Consequence

RCA Governance Foundation: govern quality consequence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

7 — Recurrence

RCA Governance Foundation: govern recurrence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

8 — Rca Leader

RCA Governance Foundation: govern RCA leader as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

9 — Technical Reviewers

RCA Governance Foundation: govern technical reviewers as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

10 — Operations Input

RCA Governance Foundation: govern operations input as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

11 — Maintenance Input

RCA Governance Foundation: govern maintenance input as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

12 — Evidence Custodian

RCA Governance Foundation: govern evidence custodian as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

13 — Scope Boundary

RCA Governance Foundation: govern scope boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

14 — Decision Authority

RCA Governance Foundation: govern decision authority as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

15 — Revision Control

RCA Governance Foundation: govern revision control as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

16 — Last Known Healthy State

Chronology Reconstruction: govern last known healthy state as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

17 — First Abnormal Indication

Chronology Reconstruction: govern first abnormal indication as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

18 — Alarm Timestamp

Chronology Reconstruction: govern alarm timestamp as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

19 — Trip Timestamp

Chronology Reconstruction: govern trip timestamp as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

20 — Operator Observation

Chronology Reconstruction: govern operator observation as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

21 — Production State

Chronology Reconstruction: govern production state as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

22 — Load/Speed/Pressure

Chronology Reconstruction: govern load/speed/pressure as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

23 — Environment

Chronology Reconstruction: govern environment as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

24 — Recent Maintenance

Chronology Reconstruction: govern recent maintenance as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

25 — Recent Repair

Chronology Reconstruction: govern recent repair as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

26 — Recent Configuration Change

Chronology Reconstruction: govern recent configuration change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

27 — Recent Lubricant/Part Change

Chronology Reconstruction: govern recent lubricant/part change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

28 — Recent Process Change

Chronology Reconstruction: govern recent process change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

29 — Restart Attempts

Chronology Reconstruction: govern restart attempts as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

30 — Failure Discovery

Chronology Reconstruction: govern failure discovery as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

31 — Controller Logs

Evidence Preservation: govern controller logs as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

32 — Vsd Logs

Evidence Preservation: govern VSD logs as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

33 — Sequencer Logs

Evidence Preservation: govern sequencer logs as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

34 — Historian Trends

Evidence Preservation: govern historian trends as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

35 — Failed Parts

Evidence Preservation: govern failed parts as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

36 — Oil/Fluid Sample

Evidence Preservation: govern oil/fluid sample as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

37 — Filter/Separator Evidence

Evidence Preservation: govern filter/separator evidence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

38 — Wear Debris

Evidence Preservation: govern wear debris as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

39 — Vibration Data

Evidence Preservation: govern vibration data as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

40 — Thermal Data

Evidence Preservation: govern thermal data as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

41 — Electrical Data

Evidence Preservation: govern electrical data as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

42 — Photos/Video

Evidence Preservation: govern photos/video as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

43 — Maintenance Records

Evidence Preservation: govern maintenance records as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

44 — Parts Traceability

Evidence Preservation: govern parts traceability as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

45 — Chain-Of-Custody Boundary

Evidence Preservation: govern chain-of-custody boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

46 — What Failed

Problem Definition: govern what failed as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

47 — Where Failed

Problem Definition: govern where failed as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

48 — When Failed

Problem Definition: govern when failed as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

49 — Operating State

Problem Definition: govern operating state as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

50 — Expected Function

Problem Definition: govern expected function as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

51 — Actual Function

Problem Definition: govern actual function as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

52 — Failure Consequence

Problem Definition: govern failure consequence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

53 — Extent Of Damage

Problem Definition: govern extent of damage as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

54 — Affected Population

Problem Definition: govern affected population as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

55 — Similar Assets

Problem Definition: govern similar assets as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

56 — Repeat History

Problem Definition: govern repeat history as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

57 — Temporary Restoration

Problem Definition: govern temporary restoration as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

58 — Unknowns

Problem Definition: govern unknowns as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

59 — Assumptions

Problem Definition: govern assumptions as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

60 — Problem Statement

Problem Definition: govern problem statement as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

61 — Alarm Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern alarm symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

62 — Temperature Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern temperature symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

63 — Pressure Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern pressure symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

64 — Vibration Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern vibration symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

65 — Noise Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern noise symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

66 — Oil Symptom

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern oil symptom as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

67 — Failed Bearing

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern failed bearing as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

68 — Failed Seal

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern failed seal as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

69 — Failed Belt/Coupling

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern failed belt/coupling as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

70 — Failed Sensor

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern failed sensor as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

71 — Failed Drive

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern failed drive as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

72 — Physical Wear Mechanism

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern physical wear mechanism as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

73 — Thermal Mechanism

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern thermal mechanism as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

74 — Electrical Mechanism

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern electrical mechanism as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

75 — Contamination Mechanism

Symptom vs Mechanism: govern contamination mechanism as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

76 — Lubrication Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern lubrication hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

77 — Contamination Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern contamination hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

78 — Misalignment Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern misalignment hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

79 — Overheating Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern overheating hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

80 — Overload Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern overload hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

81 — Wrong-Part Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern wrong-part hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

82 — Installation-Error Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern installation-error hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

83 — Control/Configuration Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern control/configuration hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

84 — Cooling Failure Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern cooling failure hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

85 — Operating-Envelope Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern operating-envelope hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

86 — Maintenance-Process Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern maintenance-process hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

87 — Environmental Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern environmental hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

88 — Design/Support Boundary

Competing Hypotheses: govern design/support boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

89 — Combined-Cause Hypothesis

Competing Hypotheses: govern combined-cause hypothesis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

90 — Unknown-Cause Option

Competing Hypotheses: govern unknown-cause option as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

91 — Predicted Evidence

Hypothesis Testing: govern predicted evidence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

92 — Measurement

Hypothesis Testing: govern measurement as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

93 — Inspection

Hypothesis Testing: govern inspection as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

94 — Manufacturer Limit

Hypothesis Testing: govern manufacturer limit as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

95 — Reference Baseline

Hypothesis Testing: govern reference baseline as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

96 — Comparison Asset Boundary

Hypothesis Testing: govern comparison asset boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

97 — Laboratory Result

Hypothesis Testing: govern laboratory result as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

98 — Metrology

Hypothesis Testing: govern metrology as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

99 — Fracture/Material Boundary

Hypothesis Testing: govern fracture/material boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

100 — Oil Analysis

Hypothesis Testing: govern oil analysis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

101 — Vibration Analysis

Hypothesis Testing: govern vibration analysis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

102 — Thermal Analysis

Hypothesis Testing: govern thermal analysis as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

103 — Electrical Test

Hypothesis Testing: govern electrical test as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

104 — Contradictory Evidence

Hypothesis Testing: govern contradictory evidence as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

105 — Hypothesis Disposition

Hypothesis Testing: govern hypothesis disposition as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

106 — High Ambient

Contributing Conditions: govern high ambient as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

107 — Dust/Contamination

Contributing Conditions: govern dust/contamination as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

108 — Water/Moisture

Contributing Conditions: govern water/moisture as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

109 — Poor Ventilation

Contributing Conditions: govern poor ventilation as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

110 — High Pressure

Contributing Conditions: govern high pressure as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

111 — Cycling

Contributing Conditions: govern cycling as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

112 — Low-Load Duty

Contributing Conditions: govern low-load duty as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

113 — Vsd Operating State

Contributing Conditions: govern VSD operating state as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

114 — Poor Alignment

Contributing Conditions: govern poor alignment as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

115 — Pipe Strain

Contributing Conditions: govern pipe strain as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

116 — Maintenance Interval

Contributing Conditions: govern maintenance interval as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

117 — Service Cleanliness

Contributing Conditions: govern service cleanliness as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

118 — Parts Availability Pressure

Contributing Conditions: govern parts availability pressure as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

119 — Operator Practice

Contributing Conditions: govern operator practice as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

120 — Production Constraint

Contributing Conditions: govern production constraint as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

121 — Maintenance Strategy

System & Organisational Causes: govern maintenance strategy as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

122 — Work Instruction

System & Organisational Causes: govern work instruction as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

123 — Training/Competence Boundary

System & Organisational Causes: govern training/competence boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

124 — Procurement Specification

System & Organisational Causes: govern procurement specification as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

125 — Parts Traceability

System & Organisational Causes: govern parts traceability as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

126 — Change Management

System & Organisational Causes: govern change management as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

127 — Alarm Management

System & Organisational Causes: govern alarm management as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

128 — Inspection Programme

System & Organisational Causes: govern inspection programme as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

129 — Condition-Monitoring Gap

System & Organisational Causes: govern condition-monitoring gap as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

130 — Spares Strategy

System & Organisational Causes: govern spares strategy as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

131 — Shutdown Planning

System & Organisational Causes: govern shutdown planning as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

132 — Design Margin

System & Organisational Causes: govern design margin as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

133 — Ownership/Accountability

System & Organisational Causes: govern ownership/accountability as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

134 — Defect Backlog

System & Organisational Causes: govern defect backlog as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

135 — Learning-System Gap

System & Organisational Causes: govern learning-system gap as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

136 — Containment

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern containment as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

137 — Repair

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern repair as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

138 — Component Redesign Boundary

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern component redesign boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

139 — Control Change

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern control change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

140 — Setpoint Change Boundary

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern setpoint change boundary as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

141 — Cooling Improvement

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern cooling improvement as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

142 — Filtration/Treatment Improvement

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern filtration/treatment improvement as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

143 — Alignment/Foundation Correction

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern alignment/foundation correction as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

144 — Maintenance-Task Change

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern maintenance-task change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

145 — Interval Change

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern interval change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

146 — Inspection Addition

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern inspection addition as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

147 — Monitoring Addition

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern monitoring addition as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

148 — Training/Process Change

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern training/process change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

149 — Spares/Procurement Change

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern spares/procurement change as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

150 — Effectiveness Verification

Corrective & Preventive Action: govern effectiveness verification as an evidence-linked causal statement. Do not infer causation from sequence alone and do not promote a plausible explanation to root cause merely because it fits the visible damage. Preserve alternative hypotheses until evidence rejects them.

151 — Premium RCA Evidence Register

152 — Causal Classification Matrix

153 — Chronology Is Necessary but Not Sufficient

Event order establishes what happened first, but temporal sequence alone does not prove causation. Use physical mechanism and discriminating evidence.

155 — Test Competing Hypotheses

For each plausible cause, state what evidence should exist if it were true, then actively look for evidence that could disprove it.

156 — Confidence & Uncertainty Engineering

Classify conclusions by evidence strength. Missing data, destroyed evidence or non-reproducible conditions should reduce confidence rather than disappear from the report.

157 — Corrective Action Is Not Preventive Action

Replacing the failed component restores function; recurrence prevention may require changes to lubrication, cooling, alignment, controls, maintenance, environment or governance.

158 — Technical / RCA Verification Gate

Verify chronology, evidence provenance, mechanism, competing hypotheses, tests, contradictions, confidence, actions and effectiveness criteria. No visual-only root-cause claim or unsupported certainty is permitted.

160 — AEO / Engineering FAQ Layer

Answer what compressor RCA is, how it differs from troubleshooting, why a failed part is not automatically root cause, how hypotheses are tested, what evidence is needed and how corrective actions are verified.