I mean, you have two choices with QA/QC/QM. You get a bunch of people deeply familiar with the domain, you pay them, but keep them independent from the groups

I mean, you have two choices with QA/QC/QM. You get a bunch of people deeply familiar with the domain, you pay them, but keep them independent from the groups being overseen. This keeps them honest, but essentially removes them from the "population" of active practitioners. They essentially become non-productive in a sense in order to ensure the prevention of non-compliant implementations. The market has thusfar balked at such a state of affairs, as the active practitioner will inevitably be paid more than the civically hired QA/QC/QM, leading to an eternal shortage as people naturally seek the higher compensated position. Or you do what we have that has shown sub-par results, and have the manufacturer self-monitor, but sacrifice the independence of the regulator. I personally prefer the former rather than the latter.