CAPM Practice: Determine how to document project controls of predictive, plan-based projects

When actual defect rates exceed the acceptable quality level, corrective action is required. The project manager investigates root causes (using tools like fishbone diagrams or 5 Whys) and implements process improvements to reduce defects. Simply accepting higher defects, changing the standard to match poor performance, or only inspecting more frequently without addressing root causes are all inadequate responses.

**Why not B:** Increasing the inspection rate only catches more defects downstream — it does not address why defects are occurring in the first place. Inspection is a detection activity, not a prevention activity, and it adds cost without fixing the root cause.

**Why not C:** Accepting an 8% defect rate when the acceptable level is 5% means tolerating substandard quality. "Close enough" is not acceptable when a defined quality threshold exists. The project must meet its quality commitments, not rationalize performance shortfalls.

**Why not D:** Updating acceptance criteria to match poor performance is adjusting the standard to fit the problem rather than fixing the problem to meet the standard. This approach undermines quality governance and should only be done through formal change control with legitimate justification, not simply to avoid corrective action.