EVERETT, Wash. - eTradeWire -- A newly consolidated forensic record known as The GUBERMAN Anomaly has revealed a 24‑year collapse in global oversight — beginning with Boeing's April and July 2002 supplier bulletins, compounded by ANSI‑ANAB's (American National Standards Institute -American National Accreditation Board) false "underwriter" claim in a 2018 U.S. State Department contract, intensified by the 2015–2021 foreign‑oversight gap, and culminating in the 2026 merger of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF- Delaware USA) and ILAC International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (Australia) into the new global body GLOBAC.

The result is a single unavoidable conclusion:

The world's accreditation system — across all industries — has been structurally compromised at its foundation.

BOEING'S 2002 SHIFT FROM OVERSIGHT TO CERTIFICATES

April 2002 — Boeing Forces NADCAP: National Aerospace & Defense Contractors Accreditation Program on Suppliers.

Boeing's April 2002 bulletin "Boeing Intent to Require NADCAP Accreditation for Special Process Source Approval" declared:

"We believe the number of redundant audits will be significantly reduced as NADCAP audits will augment the program."

Suppliers were told:

"By not obtaining accreditation your company will be removed from the list of approved processors.

Boeing itself held no NADCAP accreditation.

July 2002 — Boeing Mandates AS9100 accredited by ANAB, But Never Holds It

Boeing's July 2002 AS9100 bulletin stated:

"Our preference is to deal with proven suppliers… and not have to do on-site quality system surveys." (Survey is an Audit)

Yet Boeing:

• never held AS9100 24-years
• never appeared in OASIS-Online Aerospace System Information System
• never submitted to the system it forced on suppliers
• built more than 12,000 commercial aircraft & 400+ military aircraft in an uncertified environment. Ethiopian, Indonesian air (2018-2019-killing 346 passengers-MACS system) Alaska 1282, Air-force 1 &The Presidential Gift from Qatar were all built in this uncertified system.

https://youtu.be/zweWbsIGc7o



This contradiction is the backbone of the GUBERMAN Anomaly.

THE 2026 SHIFT: AS9100 BECOMES IA9100 The standard is international and all suppliers must be certified to the standard in order to do business within the aerospace industry.

But the underlying reality did not change:

Boeing never held AS9100, and it does not hold IA9100. 24 years

THE GLOBAL MERGER: IAF + ILAC → GLOBAC

In January 2026, IAF and ILAC merged into GLOBAC-Global Accreditation Cooperation, consolidating global accreditation under one umbrella.

But the merger did not address:

• the 2018 federal‑contract misrepresentation
• the 2015–2021 foreign‑oversight gap
• the structural contradictions in the accreditation chain

A new name does not erase a 24‑year oversight failure.

More on eTradeWire News

• Lawyers Realty Group Releases 2026 Guide on Selling Homes in Financial Distress in California
• Best Companies Group Opens Registration for Best Places to Work in Manufacturing Program
• Studica Robotics Receives 2026 Partner Excellence Award from FIRST® Robotics Canada
• What Is the Most Advanced Security System in 2026?
• Trailblazer Business Summit Unveils Growth Strategies Empowering Entrepreneurs to Accelerate

THE FEDERAL CONTRACT CLAIM: ANAB'S NONEXISTENT "UNDERWRITER" ROLE

The most explosive evidence appears in U.S. State Department Contract 19AQMM18R0131 (2018): Federal Contracts are part of the federal record for LIFE.

"ANAB is an underwriter for the International Accreditation Forum (IAF).

This statement is false.

• No accreditation body is an "underwriter."
• No IAF or ILAC governance document grants such a role.
• No mechanism exists for an accreditation body to assume risk or guarantee global equivalency.

Yet ANAB represented itself to the U.S. government as holding this nonexistent authority.

This is a material misrepresentation in a federal contract.

THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN OVERSIGHT: 2015–2021

Between 2015-2021, the IAF — the body responsible for global accreditation equivalency — was chaired by Xiao Jianhua, a Chinese national and senior official of the China National Accreditation Service (CNAS) Beijing.

This was never disclosed to American suppliers, defense contractors, or veteran‑owned businesses.

Even more alarming:

• Xiao Jianhua had been involved in U.S. quality oversight since 1994.
• In 2017, China's National Intelligence Law, Article 7, mandated that he provide information to the Chinese government upon request. In January 2017 Xiao Jianhua issued a laboratory certificate to and ill-prepared Bio-level-4 lab (highest contagion experiments) in Wuhan China. The scientists, six months prior to the issuance of the certificate complained of not having enough highly trained technicians, Ms. Pamela Sale VP of laboratory certification at ANSI-ANAB under deposition in Austin Texas (2017) stated "there is no commonly agreed-upon set of standards that forensics labs around the country have to follow. Instead, there are informal guidelines that labs can choose to follow or not" https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/09/austins-crime-lab-failure-points-national-crisis/

Six-months after the certificate was issued to Wuhan, specialists from the U.S. went to the laboratory. Scientists from Wuhan, still complained about not having enough highly trained technicians. In a CDC training document Volume 25, Number 5—May 2019 for Virology Lab training in China. The only lab call out was Wuhan. It stated the most important part of any Bio-level 4 laboratory is highly trained technicians "they are the first line of containment to prevent escape". https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/5/18-0220_article

If there were no enforced standards in U.S. labs, why would we expect rigorous oversight at foreign labs like Wuhan?

This means:

• accreditation data
• supplier information
• quality documentation
• audit records

…could have been compelled under Chinese law.

Ask yourself:

Did your registrar between 2015-2021 ever tell you that your accreditation oversight was chaired by a Chinese national bound by China's National Intelligence Law?

More on eTradeWire News

• Then. Now. Always Miami Beach: Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce Celebrates 100 Years at Centennial Gala
• Seven Games That Make You Think (and Smile) Earn 2026 Mensa Select® Honors
• Repairly Auto Unveils Fintech-Powered AI Platform to fix US $500 Billion Car Repair Crisis
• Century Cruises Celebrates One-Year Anniversary at Seatrade Cruise Global 2026
• Dach Digital Expands Modern Marketing Support for Small-Town Businesses Across Rural Manitoba

If you are a veteran‑owned business, this should infuriate you.

No registrar disclosed this.

No registrar warned you.

No registrar protected you.

THE UNIVERSAL IMPLICATION: EVERY INDUSTRY IS INVOLVED

This is not an aerospace issue.

This is not an AS9100/IA9100 issue.

This is not a Boeing‑only issue.

This affects every industry that relies on ANAB or any MLA- Multi-lateral agreement/ MRA‑ Multi-regional agreement which are ANAB equivalent accreditation bodies — because ANAB placed the false "underwriter" claim into a U.S. federal contract.

This includes:

• aerospace
• defense
• medical devices
• laboratories
• manufacturing
• plastics
• metals
• energy
• food safety
• environmental testing
• construction
• transportation
• information security
• healthcare
• education
• packaging
• every ISO, AS, IATF, and sector‑specific certification

If your certificate carries the ANAB symbol — or the symbol of any MLA/MRA‑equivalent accreditation body — you are connected to the same federal‑contract misrepresentation.

THE IMPACT: SUPPLIERS, INVESTORS, INSURERS, LOGISTICS, AND THE PUBLIC

This is where the GUBERMAN Anomaly becomes unavoidable:

How can any supplier have confidence in their certification when the accreditation body behind it misrepresented itself in a federal contract?

And even more urgent:

How can any certificate, any oversight claim, or any aircraft built by Boeing be trusted when Boeing aligned itself with — and promoted — an accreditation body that perpetrated a misrepresentation in a U.S. federal contract?

This is not a paperwork issue.

This is a structural contradiction that reaches into every sector of the global economy.

FINAL CALL TO ACTION

Every stakeholder must now confront the contradiction directly.

Contact your registrar. Ask them how your certificate can be considered reliable when the accreditation body behind it is tied to a misrepresentation in a federal contract.

Suppliers, investors, logistics firms, insurers, and travelers: Demand answers from

ANSI-ANAB CONTACTS:

Gail Matthews-LEAD ATTORNEY: 202-293-8020/ 212-642-4977,

Doug Leonard-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: 260-413-5104,

Patricia Griffin-SENIOR VP & GENERAL COUNCIL 212-642-4954,

The Boeing Company

Washington State:

BOEING- 206-655-2121

AUBURN-253-931-2121

BELLEVUE-425-865-6915

Be prepared:

• Your registrar may not know what you're talking about.
• They may attempt to dismiss the issue.
• They may even disparage the name Daryl Guberman — because the GUBERMAN Anomaly exposes the foundation they rely on.
• By being ANAB accredited or international equivalent you were unaware of the Federal contract fraud. This will undoubtedly cause harm to your business.
• Call your attorney!

But you have something your registrar does not:

The truth — backed by a federal contract that states, in plain language, that ANAB is an "underwriter" for the IAF.

The question remains:

How can any certificate, any oversight claim, or any aircraft Boeing builds be trusted when the system behind them is built on a documented misrepresentation?

The GUBERMAN Anomaly is not an allegation.

It is a forensic record — and it has changed the landscape permanently.

"Registrars may dismiss me. Corporations & Agencies may stay silent . But none of them can outrun the federal contract, the governance trail, or the evidence I've preserved.

I am DARYL GUBERMAN — 40‑year Quality Expert and Boeing Shareholder — and this is the truth the industry has avoided for 24 years."

203 556-1493