So Boeing claims this is not Quality Documentation

Boeing has a procedure that basically requires that suppliers with MRB delegation authority (which is a certified document) to be referenced in the internal QMS documentation. Problem is that there QMS documentation could any document associated with our QMS and yes including records (records are documents but documents are not necessarily records). The fact is that the term "QMS Documentation" is not objectively assessable due to the lack of unequivocal definition.

I show them our documented information of review of customer contract requirements and flow downs, which is a controlled form in which it does reference the certification; well they still claim that this is not QA documentation. I know it will take me less than an hour to update our MRB procedure to include this but why should I do this? If someone thinks Boeing is right please explain why.

Boeing also claims that a "document changes" but a "record never changes".. well our review of flow downs form does have versions and revisions, it does change just like any procedure, and they would still not admit that their definition is ambiguous.

The unfilled out FORM will change but a filled out form is a record - it has data and information entered on it. So the record itself never changes. You may amend it but the original data and information must remain intact and legible.

It may sound like semantics, but a record can be corrected (such as if you accidentally transpose a number when writing it down) but not changed (which implies that you're doing something unethical).

I say amended you say corrected…