I have a first article from CCX for revision B but are repo only has a revision A in it.
Redgums harness was changed for EMI. We added a TVS diode. Its possible that there was confusion when sending that drawing, although it has its own separate part number. I could have originally reved, then realized that that would affect the quiver harness then a new part number to separate quiver from redgum. @adam do you have some insight on this?
@oliver @kim @sherylb - the story goes like this: when we knew we needed the diode for redgum, @west rev'ed the quiver harness because it should not affect the functionality of quiver. The problem with this solution was that we would need to go back through EMI and UL testing to make this change to quiver. Once that had been explained, the diode version was created as a new part number (EL-HR0185) and EL-HR0150 was reverted to rev A. I believe that purchasing was notified when we created the new part number specifically for redgum, but they may not have been notified that the repo for quiver was reverted to rev A on this drawing. Currently the quiver repo has rev A of this part so it's possible that CCX was working from a drawing sent between updating quiver harness drawing and the decision to make a new part number for redgum.
@oliver you are correct that these harnesses would fail FA for EL-HR0150. They probably pass FA for EL-HR0185. I don't know the least confusing way to address this, but if we can let them know that the ones they delivered are good for EL-HR0185 and have them redo a set as EL-HR0150 that might save us some money and time instead of requoting FAs for EL-HR0185 and EL-HR0150.
Note: Harness EL-HR0150 Rev A that we have received First articles notedRev B are actually EL-HR0185 Rev B not EL-HR0150.
I will ask CCX to re-quote EL-HR0150 REV A again- and procure another First Article 5 pcs