Month: May 2026

May 8, 2026 /3BL/ – Bacardi, the world’s largest family-owned spirits company, announces the launch in Mexico of Shake Your Future, a program that transforms the lives of young adults by offering free mixology training and a path to formal employment as a professional bartender.

The program arrives in Mexico at a crucial time. According to INEGI data, although there are more than 30 million young people in the country, a large proportion of them face obstacles in accessing stable job opportunities. With the rate of informal employment and unemployment among 20-29 year olds reaching 44%, young people have limited opportunities for professional development. Bacardi has launched Shake Your Future to improve this situation for a small group of lucky individuals.

“Today, with Shake Your Future, we are training the next generation of talented bartenders and providing them with a platform for their personal and professional development,” says Daniel Aliaga, VP and Managing Director, Bacardi Latin America and the Caribbean. “It reflects our values ​​and our confidence in the unlimited potential of Mexican youth to further elevate the country’s renowned hospitality industry.”

Shake Your Future is an intensive, month-long program—completely free of charge—that immerses participants in the art of mixology and customer service. The first 10 students to participate in the program were selected with the support of YouthBuild, a non-profit organization that promotes opportunities for young people and helps them achieve their goals and aspirations.

The training culminates in an internationally recognized qualification awarded by the prestigious European Bartender School.

The program, which was first launched in France in 2018, has proven successful in markets around the world, including Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, India, and South Africa, helping hundreds of graduates find employment and develop professional careers. Participants learn to master the art of mixology using iconic brands from the Bacardi portfolio—including BACARDÍ rum, BOMBAY SAPPHIRE gin, PATRÓN tequila, GREY GOOSE® vodka, and ST-GERMAIN liqueur—while developing the essential interpersonal skills to succeed in the industry.

After completing the course, each graduate receives support from Bacardi in accessing job opportunities within Mexico’s vibrant bar and restaurant community.

The choice of Mexico to expand Shake Your Future is strategic. The hospitality industry is a pillar of the national economy, representing nearly 8.7% of GDP and generating millions of jobs. Mexico’s influence on cocktail culture is also growing, as the country is now home to several of the world’s best cocktail bars, including Mexico City’s Handshake Speakeasy, which was named the world’s number one bar in 2024.

“The demand for bartenders with the skills needed to make amazing cocktails has never been higher,” says Ricardo Nava, co-owner of another of the country’s top cocktail bars, Mexico City’s Bar Mauro. “With Shake Your Future, Bacardi is helping to attract new talent to a sector that will only continue to grow.”

This launch marks a new chapter in the long history of Bacardi in Mexico and underscores its ongoing commitment to Corporate Sustainability to protect people and the planet. Bacardi supports local causes, collaborations, and programs to boost employability and job opportunities in its communities.

To learn more about how Bacardi is doing the right thing, visit www.bacardilimited.com/CS and, for more information about the Shake Your Future program, visit: www.bacardilimited.com/cs/shakeyourfuture

ENDS

Media enquiries: Andrew Carney, acarney@bacardi.com

Always drink responsibly.

About Bacardi Limited

Bacardi Limited, the largest privately held international spirits company, produces, markets, and distributes spirits and wines. The Bacardi Limited portfolio comprises more than 200 brands and labels, including BACARDÍ® rum, PATRÓN® tequila, GREY GOOSE® vodka, DEWAR’S® Blended Scotch whisky, BOMBAY SAPPHIRE® gin, MARTINI® vermouth and sparkling wines, CAZADORES® 100% blue agave tequila, and other leading and emerging brands including WILLIAM LAWSON’S® Scotch whisky, D’USSÉ® Cognac, ANGEL’S ENVY® American straight whiskey, and ST-GERMAIN® elderflower liqueur. Founded more than 164 years ago in Santiago de Cuba, family-owned Bacardi Limited currently employs more than 8,000, operates production facilities in 10 countries and territories, and sells its brands in more than 160 markets. Bacardi Limited refers to the Bacardi group of companies, including Bacardi International Limited. Visit www.bacardilimited.com or follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram.

By Mike Wager, Contributor

Test automation isn’t a philosophical debate anymore across defense programs.

It’s what you do when you’re tired of the same late-cycle mess repeating itself: integration breaking in places nobody instrumented, teams scrambling to rebuild evidence packs from screenshots and spreadsheets, and leadership being asked to sign off on a release with more confidence than the facts justify.

That pressure isn’t coming from trends. It’s coming from reality. Systems are more software-defined, updates land more often, and suppliers deliver components that only make sense once they’re stitched together. But the burden of proof hasn’t eased; it’s broadened. Safety, cyber, resilience, and operational readiness still require defensible evidence, and the old habit of “we’ll document it properly near the milestone” doesn’t survive continuous change.

The shift is simple: assurance is moving upstream. Evidence gets created as the system evolves, or you end up recreating it later, under pressure, when it’s most expensive and least reliable.

From milestone assurance to continuous accreditation readiness

Programs are moving away from “we’ll pull the evidence together near the gate” and toward staying accreditation-ready all the time.

Two requirements sit underneath that shift:

• Assurance must be continuous. Evidence accumulates with every build, patch, and integration change, not only at stage gates.
• Assurance must be sovereign. It must work inside controlled environments with hard constraints: data residency, restricted connectivity, tool approval, and export controls.

This is where a lot of DevSecOps narratives hit the real world. They assume always-connected toolchains, cloud analytics, and integrations you can just switch on. Many defense environments can’t operate that way. Continuous assurance still must happen, just inside secure labs, segmented networks, and restricted environments where the boundary isn’t up for negotiation.

Continuous evidence packs: the real bottleneck programs are trying to remove

The slow part is rarely executing tests. The slow part is when someone asks you to prove it.

Because proving it isn’t one stakeholder. It’s engineering, quality, safety, cyber, program leadership, and often multiple companies across a supplier chain. Each one needs evidence that holds up when you zoom in, not a story that sounds plausible.

That’s why the same failure modes keep showing up:

• Evidence scattered across tools, teams, and subcontractors
• Verification reports stitched together right before milestones
• Gaps between requirements, coverage, and what actually happened
• Arguments over whether a failure is a real defect or a brittle test
• “Run it again” cycles just to recreate proof in the right format

The target becomes evidence-by-default: every run should leave behind what assurance teams need, automatically, consistently, and in a way that survives scrutiny.

A modern approach produces continuous evidence packs: structured proof generated on every run, not assembled later:

• Step-level outcomes tied back to requirements
• Logs, screenshots, and run context that explain what happened
• Configuration, versions, timestamps, and environment identity
• Traceability that still makes sense after supplier changes and new releases

This isn’t “more reporting.” It’s removing the manual evidence of tax that gets paid again and again.

Supplier assurance: prove it across the chain, not inside one team

Delivery is built on supplier structures: primes, system integrators, tiered subcontractors, and national partners. The problem isn’t the structure. It’s what happens when assurance relies on trust and narrative instead of reproducible proof.

“We tested it” isn’t evidence. “It passed in our environment” isn’t evidence. “The dashboard is green” isn’t evidence.

Supplier assurance, done properly, looks like this: This requirement was validated by these tests, in this configuration, producing these artifacts, with this outcome, on this date.

When you can do that, program friction drops fast:

• Fewer debates that turn into rework
• Fewer “prove it again” loops every time something changes upstream
• Fewer surprises hidden behind handover documents
• Faster triage when integration breaks, because you can see exactly what ran and where

Assurance becomes verifiable, not rhetorical.

Sovereign deployment expectations: assurance must work inside the boundary

Sovereignty changes the shape of the problem. For many programs, the system, the testing, and the evidence can’t drift outside the controlled boundary, not casually, not “just for analysis.”

So continuous assurance has to hold up when:

• Networks are segmented or air-gapped
• Toolchains are on-prem
• External integrations are limited or prohibited
• Evidence must remain in program-owned repositories
• Exports have to be controlled, deliberate, and auditable

That’s why this is more than a process tweak. It’s an architectural constraint.

If your assurance model depends on cloud services to function, it fails under sovereign constraints. If it requires intrusive components on mission systems, it creates new approval work and a new attack surface. Continuous assurance has to be achievable where the system lives, inside the secure lab, without negotiating exceptions every time you need proof.

What changes when evidence is continuous

When evidence is produced continuously, assurance stops being a cliff edge at the end. It becomes a steady build-up of proof that stays current.

Practically, that means:

• Less last-minute evidence pack scrambles
• Fewer delays caused by missing artifacts
• Earlier visibility of integration risk (where real failures live)
• Clearer readiness signals for leadership
• More confident go/no-go decisions because the evidence is current, not curated

The key point: you don’t “add a phase.” You stop paying the hidden cost of reconstructing proof later.

Lessons from the field: where the model pays off

When continuous evidence replaces milestone evidence, the same shift shows up again and again:

• Cadence improves because assurance doesn’t bottleneck at the end
• Coverage improves because teams stop avoiding tests that are painful to evidence
• Engineering time moves from repetition to analysis and risk reduction

And the advantage isn’t “faster testing.” It’s faster, defensible assurance under real constraints: sovereign environments, complex GUIs, multi-system workflows, and supplier-delivered components that must be verified end-to-end.

The human shift: from paperwork production to risk intelligence

This is the part most people don’t say out loud.

When evidence packs are automated and traceability is continuous, assurance teams stop burning their best people on admin work with a technical badge on it: chasing screenshots, rebuilding reports, reconciling versions, rewriting the same justification in five formats.

They get to do the work humans are actually good at:

• Spotting weak signals before they become program issues
• Challenging assumptions that toolchains quietly bake in
• Pushing coverage into the risky paths teams avoid
• Making risk visible early enough to do something about it

That’s the end-state: move faster without increasing residual risk, because assurance is continuous, evidence-led, supplier-verifiable, and sovereign by design.

Keysight Eggplant: built for sovereign, evidence-led testing

Most testing tools assume open access: APIs you can call, agents you can install, cloud services you can lean on, and logs you can ship off for analysis. That’s not how a lot of defense testing works.

Keysight Eggplant is built for environments where the boundary is fixed, and the proof has to stand up on its own.

• Non-invasive by design
  Drives the system the way a user does, visually, so you can test mission UIs and locked-down applications without needing source code access or intrusive agents.
• Evidence-by-default, not evidence-afterward
  Every run can generate the artifacts assurance teams actually need: step outcomes tied to requirements, logs, screenshots, timestamps, environment identity, and full run context, so you’re not rebuilding evidence packs near the gate.
• Works inside the boundary
  Designed to run on-premises in secure labs and segmented networks, where external integrations are limited and data residency is not optional.
• Coverage across the messy parts of the stack
  From embedded and specialist systems through to enterprise apps and operational dashboards, so you can validate end-to-end workflows where integration risk lives.
• Traceability that survives change
  As suppliers update components and configurations shift, you can keep a defensible line from requirement → test → run → artifacts → outcome, without turning every release into a re-justification exercise.

The net effect is straightforward: less time spent reconstructing proof, fewer “prove it again” loops, and clearer readiness signals based on current evidence—not curated narratives.

The direction of travel

The next phase of QA defense isn’t about chasing novelty. It’s about keeping pace without letting residual risk creep up.

Teams will keep automating, but the real gain comes when automation is paired with continuous assurance: the ability to generate defensible evidence on every run, inside sovereign constraints, and across supplier boundaries.

That’s what changes the program experience. Fewer late-cycle scrambles. Fewer debates about what’s “real.” Faster identification of integration risk. And release decisions made on facts that are up to date.

Visit our dedicated A&D software testing page for more information.

 

By Mike Wager, Contributor

Test automation isn’t a philosophical debate anymore across defense programs.

It’s what you do when you’re tired of the same late-cycle mess repeating itself: integration breaking in places nobody instrumented, teams scrambling to rebuild evidence packs from screenshots and spreadsheets, and leadership being asked to sign off on a release with more confidence than the facts justify.

That pressure isn’t coming from trends. It’s coming from reality. Systems are more software-defined, updates land more often, and suppliers deliver components that only make sense once they’re stitched together. But the burden of proof hasn’t eased; it’s broadened. Safety, cyber, resilience, and operational readiness still require defensible evidence, and the old habit of “we’ll document it properly near the milestone” doesn’t survive continuous change.

The shift is simple: assurance is moving upstream. Evidence gets created as the system evolves, or you end up recreating it later, under pressure, when it’s most expensive and least reliable.

From milestone assurance to continuous accreditation readiness

Programs are moving away from “we’ll pull the evidence together near the gate” and toward staying accreditation-ready all the time.

Two requirements sit underneath that shift:

• Assurance must be continuous. Evidence accumulates with every build, patch, and integration change, not only at stage gates.
• Assurance must be sovereign. It must work inside controlled environments with hard constraints: data residency, restricted connectivity, tool approval, and export controls.

This is where a lot of DevSecOps narratives hit the real world. They assume always-connected toolchains, cloud analytics, and integrations you can just switch on. Many defense environments can’t operate that way. Continuous assurance still must happen, just inside secure labs, segmented networks, and restricted environments where the boundary isn’t up for negotiation.

Continuous evidence packs: the real bottleneck programs are trying to remove

The slow part is rarely executing tests. The slow part is when someone asks you to prove it.

Because proving it isn’t one stakeholder. It’s engineering, quality, safety, cyber, program leadership, and often multiple companies across a supplier chain. Each one needs evidence that holds up when you zoom in, not a story that sounds plausible.

That’s why the same failure modes keep showing up:

• Evidence scattered across tools, teams, and subcontractors
• Verification reports stitched together right before milestones
• Gaps between requirements, coverage, and what actually happened
• Arguments over whether a failure is a real defect or a brittle test
• “Run it again” cycles just to recreate proof in the right format

The target becomes evidence-by-default: every run should leave behind what assurance teams need, automatically, consistently, and in a way that survives scrutiny.

A modern approach produces continuous evidence packs: structured proof generated on every run, not assembled later:

• Step-level outcomes tied back to requirements
• Logs, screenshots, and run context that explain what happened
• Configuration, versions, timestamps, and environment identity
• Traceability that still makes sense after supplier changes and new releases

This isn’t “more reporting.” It’s removing the manual evidence of tax that gets paid again and again.

Supplier assurance: prove it across the chain, not inside one team

Delivery is built on supplier structures: primes, system integrators, tiered subcontractors, and national partners. The problem isn’t the structure. It’s what happens when assurance relies on trust and narrative instead of reproducible proof.

“We tested it” isn’t evidence. “It passed in our environment” isn’t evidence. “The dashboard is green” isn’t evidence.

Supplier assurance, done properly, looks like this: This requirement was validated by these tests, in this configuration, producing these artifacts, with this outcome, on this date.

When you can do that, program friction drops fast:

• Fewer debates that turn into rework
• Fewer “prove it again” loops every time something changes upstream
• Fewer surprises hidden behind handover documents
• Faster triage when integration breaks, because you can see exactly what ran and where

Assurance becomes verifiable, not rhetorical.

Sovereign deployment expectations: assurance must work inside the boundary

Sovereignty changes the shape of the problem. For many programs, the system, the testing, and the evidence can’t drift outside the controlled boundary, not casually, not “just for analysis.”

So continuous assurance has to hold up when:

• Networks are segmented or air-gapped
• Toolchains are on-prem
• External integrations are limited or prohibited
• Evidence must remain in program-owned repositories
• Exports have to be controlled, deliberate, and auditable

That’s why this is more than a process tweak. It’s an architectural constraint.

If your assurance model depends on cloud services to function, it fails under sovereign constraints. If it requires intrusive components on mission systems, it creates new approval work and a new attack surface. Continuous assurance has to be achievable where the system lives, inside the secure lab, without negotiating exceptions every time you need proof.

What changes when evidence is continuous

When evidence is produced continuously, assurance stops being a cliff edge at the end. It becomes a steady build-up of proof that stays current.

Practically, that means:

• Less last-minute evidence pack scrambles
• Fewer delays caused by missing artifacts
• Earlier visibility of integration risk (where real failures live)
• Clearer readiness signals for leadership
• More confident go/no-go decisions because the evidence is current, not curated

The key point: you don’t “add a phase.” You stop paying the hidden cost of reconstructing proof later.

Lessons from the field: where the model pays off

When continuous evidence replaces milestone evidence, the same shift shows up again and again:

• Cadence improves because assurance doesn’t bottleneck at the end
• Coverage improves because teams stop avoiding tests that are painful to evidence
• Engineering time moves from repetition to analysis and risk reduction

And the advantage isn’t “faster testing.” It’s faster, defensible assurance under real constraints: sovereign environments, complex GUIs, multi-system workflows, and supplier-delivered components that must be verified end-to-end.

The human shift: from paperwork production to risk intelligence

This is the part most people don’t say out loud.

When evidence packs are automated and traceability is continuous, assurance teams stop burning their best people on admin work with a technical badge on it: chasing screenshots, rebuilding reports, reconciling versions, rewriting the same justification in five formats.

They get to do the work humans are actually good at:

• Spotting weak signals before they become program issues
• Challenging assumptions that toolchains quietly bake in
• Pushing coverage into the risky paths teams avoid
• Making risk visible early enough to do something about it

That’s the end-state: move faster without increasing residual risk, because assurance is continuous, evidence-led, supplier-verifiable, and sovereign by design.

Keysight Eggplant: built for sovereign, evidence-led testing

Most testing tools assume open access: APIs you can call, agents you can install, cloud services you can lean on, and logs you can ship off for analysis. That’s not how a lot of defense testing works.

Keysight Eggplant is built for environments where the boundary is fixed, and the proof has to stand up on its own.

• Non-invasive by design
  Drives the system the way a user does, visually, so you can test mission UIs and locked-down applications without needing source code access or intrusive agents.
• Evidence-by-default, not evidence-afterward
  Every run can generate the artifacts assurance teams actually need: step outcomes tied to requirements, logs, screenshots, timestamps, environment identity, and full run context, so you’re not rebuilding evidence packs near the gate.
• Works inside the boundary
  Designed to run on-premises in secure labs and segmented networks, where external integrations are limited and data residency is not optional.
• Coverage across the messy parts of the stack
  From embedded and specialist systems through to enterprise apps and operational dashboards, so you can validate end-to-end workflows where integration risk lives.
• Traceability that survives change
  As suppliers update components and configurations shift, you can keep a defensible line from requirement → test → run → artifacts → outcome, without turning every release into a re-justification exercise.

The net effect is straightforward: less time spent reconstructing proof, fewer “prove it again” loops, and clearer readiness signals based on current evidence—not curated narratives.

The direction of travel

The next phase of QA defense isn’t about chasing novelty. It’s about keeping pace without letting residual risk creep up.

Teams will keep automating, but the real gain comes when automation is paired with continuous assurance: the ability to generate defensible evidence on every run, inside sovereign constraints, and across supplier boundaries.

That’s what changes the program experience. Fewer late-cycle scrambles. Fewer debates about what’s “real.” Faster identification of integration risk. And release decisions made on facts that are up to date.

Visit our dedicated A&D software testing page for more information.

 

By Mike Wager, Contributor

Test automation isn’t a philosophical debate anymore across defense programs.

It’s what you do when you’re tired of the same late-cycle mess repeating itself: integration breaking in places nobody instrumented, teams scrambling to rebuild evidence packs from screenshots and spreadsheets, and leadership being asked to sign off on a release with more confidence than the facts justify.

That pressure isn’t coming from trends. It’s coming from reality. Systems are more software-defined, updates land more often, and suppliers deliver components that only make sense once they’re stitched together. But the burden of proof hasn’t eased; it’s broadened. Safety, cyber, resilience, and operational readiness still require defensible evidence, and the old habit of “we’ll document it properly near the milestone” doesn’t survive continuous change.

The shift is simple: assurance is moving upstream. Evidence gets created as the system evolves, or you end up recreating it later, under pressure, when it’s most expensive and least reliable.

From milestone assurance to continuous accreditation readiness

Programs are moving away from “we’ll pull the evidence together near the gate” and toward staying accreditation-ready all the time.

Two requirements sit underneath that shift:

• Assurance must be continuous. Evidence accumulates with every build, patch, and integration change, not only at stage gates.
• Assurance must be sovereign. It must work inside controlled environments with hard constraints: data residency, restricted connectivity, tool approval, and export controls.

This is where a lot of DevSecOps narratives hit the real world. They assume always-connected toolchains, cloud analytics, and integrations you can just switch on. Many defense environments can’t operate that way. Continuous assurance still must happen, just inside secure labs, segmented networks, and restricted environments where the boundary isn’t up for negotiation.

Continuous evidence packs: the real bottleneck programs are trying to remove

The slow part is rarely executing tests. The slow part is when someone asks you to prove it.

Because proving it isn’t one stakeholder. It’s engineering, quality, safety, cyber, program leadership, and often multiple companies across a supplier chain. Each one needs evidence that holds up when you zoom in, not a story that sounds plausible.

That’s why the same failure modes keep showing up:

• Evidence scattered across tools, teams, and subcontractors
• Verification reports stitched together right before milestones
• Gaps between requirements, coverage, and what actually happened
• Arguments over whether a failure is a real defect or a brittle test
• “Run it again” cycles just to recreate proof in the right format

The target becomes evidence-by-default: every run should leave behind what assurance teams need, automatically, consistently, and in a way that survives scrutiny.

A modern approach produces continuous evidence packs: structured proof generated on every run, not assembled later:

• Step-level outcomes tied back to requirements
• Logs, screenshots, and run context that explain what happened
• Configuration, versions, timestamps, and environment identity
• Traceability that still makes sense after supplier changes and new releases

This isn’t “more reporting.” It’s removing the manual evidence of tax that gets paid again and again.

Supplier assurance: prove it across the chain, not inside one team

Delivery is built on supplier structures: primes, system integrators, tiered subcontractors, and national partners. The problem isn’t the structure. It’s what happens when assurance relies on trust and narrative instead of reproducible proof.

“We tested it” isn’t evidence. “It passed in our environment” isn’t evidence. “The dashboard is green” isn’t evidence.

Supplier assurance, done properly, looks like this: This requirement was validated by these tests, in this configuration, producing these artifacts, with this outcome, on this date.

When you can do that, program friction drops fast:

• Fewer debates that turn into rework
• Fewer “prove it again” loops every time something changes upstream
• Fewer surprises hidden behind handover documents
• Faster triage when integration breaks, because you can see exactly what ran and where

Assurance becomes verifiable, not rhetorical.

Sovereign deployment expectations: assurance must work inside the boundary

Sovereignty changes the shape of the problem. For many programs, the system, the testing, and the evidence can’t drift outside the controlled boundary, not casually, not “just for analysis.”

So continuous assurance has to hold up when:

• Networks are segmented or air-gapped
• Toolchains are on-prem
• External integrations are limited or prohibited
• Evidence must remain in program-owned repositories
• Exports have to be controlled, deliberate, and auditable

That’s why this is more than a process tweak. It’s an architectural constraint.

If your assurance model depends on cloud services to function, it fails under sovereign constraints. If it requires intrusive components on mission systems, it creates new approval work and a new attack surface. Continuous assurance has to be achievable where the system lives, inside the secure lab, without negotiating exceptions every time you need proof.

What changes when evidence is continuous

When evidence is produced continuously, assurance stops being a cliff edge at the end. It becomes a steady build-up of proof that stays current.

Practically, that means:

• Less last-minute evidence pack scrambles
• Fewer delays caused by missing artifacts
• Earlier visibility of integration risk (where real failures live)
• Clearer readiness signals for leadership
• More confident go/no-go decisions because the evidence is current, not curated

The key point: you don’t “add a phase.” You stop paying the hidden cost of reconstructing proof later.

Lessons from the field: where the model pays off

When continuous evidence replaces milestone evidence, the same shift shows up again and again:

• Cadence improves because assurance doesn’t bottleneck at the end
• Coverage improves because teams stop avoiding tests that are painful to evidence
• Engineering time moves from repetition to analysis and risk reduction

And the advantage isn’t “faster testing.” It’s faster, defensible assurance under real constraints: sovereign environments, complex GUIs, multi-system workflows, and supplier-delivered components that must be verified end-to-end.

The human shift: from paperwork production to risk intelligence

This is the part most people don’t say out loud.

When evidence packs are automated and traceability is continuous, assurance teams stop burning their best people on admin work with a technical badge on it: chasing screenshots, rebuilding reports, reconciling versions, rewriting the same justification in five formats.

They get to do the work humans are actually good at:

• Spotting weak signals before they become program issues
• Challenging assumptions that toolchains quietly bake in
• Pushing coverage into the risky paths teams avoid
• Making risk visible early enough to do something about it

That’s the end-state: move faster without increasing residual risk, because assurance is continuous, evidence-led, supplier-verifiable, and sovereign by design.

Keysight Eggplant: built for sovereign, evidence-led testing

Most testing tools assume open access: APIs you can call, agents you can install, cloud services you can lean on, and logs you can ship off for analysis. That’s not how a lot of defense testing works.

Keysight Eggplant is built for environments where the boundary is fixed, and the proof has to stand up on its own.

• Non-invasive by design
  Drives the system the way a user does, visually, so you can test mission UIs and locked-down applications without needing source code access or intrusive agents.
• Evidence-by-default, not evidence-afterward
  Every run can generate the artifacts assurance teams actually need: step outcomes tied to requirements, logs, screenshots, timestamps, environment identity, and full run context, so you’re not rebuilding evidence packs near the gate.
• Works inside the boundary
  Designed to run on-premises in secure labs and segmented networks, where external integrations are limited and data residency is not optional.
• Coverage across the messy parts of the stack
  From embedded and specialist systems through to enterprise apps and operational dashboards, so you can validate end-to-end workflows where integration risk lives.
• Traceability that survives change
  As suppliers update components and configurations shift, you can keep a defensible line from requirement → test → run → artifacts → outcome, without turning every release into a re-justification exercise.

The net effect is straightforward: less time spent reconstructing proof, fewer “prove it again” loops, and clearer readiness signals based on current evidence—not curated narratives.

The direction of travel

The next phase of QA defense isn’t about chasing novelty. It’s about keeping pace without letting residual risk creep up.

Teams will keep automating, but the real gain comes when automation is paired with continuous assurance: the ability to generate defensible evidence on every run, inside sovereign constraints, and across supplier boundaries.

That’s what changes the program experience. Fewer late-cycle scrambles. Fewer debates about what’s “real.” Faster identification of integration risk. And release decisions made on facts that are up to date.

Visit our dedicated A&D software testing page for more information.

 

By Mike Wager, Contributor

Test automation isn’t a philosophical debate anymore across defense programs.

It’s what you do when you’re tired of the same late-cycle mess repeating itself: integration breaking in places nobody instrumented, teams scrambling to rebuild evidence packs from screenshots and spreadsheets, and leadership being asked to sign off on a release with more confidence than the facts justify.

That pressure isn’t coming from trends. It’s coming from reality. Systems are more software-defined, updates land more often, and suppliers deliver components that only make sense once they’re stitched together. But the burden of proof hasn’t eased; it’s broadened. Safety, cyber, resilience, and operational readiness still require defensible evidence, and the old habit of “we’ll document it properly near the milestone” doesn’t survive continuous change.

The shift is simple: assurance is moving upstream. Evidence gets created as the system evolves, or you end up recreating it later, under pressure, when it’s most expensive and least reliable.

From milestone assurance to continuous accreditation readiness

Programs are moving away from “we’ll pull the evidence together near the gate” and toward staying accreditation-ready all the time.

Two requirements sit underneath that shift:

• Assurance must be continuous. Evidence accumulates with every build, patch, and integration change, not only at stage gates.
• Assurance must be sovereign. It must work inside controlled environments with hard constraints: data residency, restricted connectivity, tool approval, and export controls.

This is where a lot of DevSecOps narratives hit the real world. They assume always-connected toolchains, cloud analytics, and integrations you can just switch on. Many defense environments can’t operate that way. Continuous assurance still must happen, just inside secure labs, segmented networks, and restricted environments where the boundary isn’t up for negotiation.

Continuous evidence packs: the real bottleneck programs are trying to remove

The slow part is rarely executing tests. The slow part is when someone asks you to prove it.

Because proving it isn’t one stakeholder. It’s engineering, quality, safety, cyber, program leadership, and often multiple companies across a supplier chain. Each one needs evidence that holds up when you zoom in, not a story that sounds plausible.

That’s why the same failure modes keep showing up:

• Evidence scattered across tools, teams, and subcontractors
• Verification reports stitched together right before milestones
• Gaps between requirements, coverage, and what actually happened
• Arguments over whether a failure is a real defect or a brittle test
• “Run it again” cycles just to recreate proof in the right format

The target becomes evidence-by-default: every run should leave behind what assurance teams need, automatically, consistently, and in a way that survives scrutiny.

A modern approach produces continuous evidence packs: structured proof generated on every run, not assembled later:

• Step-level outcomes tied back to requirements
• Logs, screenshots, and run context that explain what happened
• Configuration, versions, timestamps, and environment identity
• Traceability that still makes sense after supplier changes and new releases

This isn’t “more reporting.” It’s removing the manual evidence of tax that gets paid again and again.

Supplier assurance: prove it across the chain, not inside one team

Delivery is built on supplier structures: primes, system integrators, tiered subcontractors, and national partners. The problem isn’t the structure. It’s what happens when assurance relies on trust and narrative instead of reproducible proof.

“We tested it” isn’t evidence. “It passed in our environment” isn’t evidence. “The dashboard is green” isn’t evidence.

Supplier assurance, done properly, looks like this: This requirement was validated by these tests, in this configuration, producing these artifacts, with this outcome, on this date.

When you can do that, program friction drops fast:

• Fewer debates that turn into rework
• Fewer “prove it again” loops every time something changes upstream
• Fewer surprises hidden behind handover documents
• Faster triage when integration breaks, because you can see exactly what ran and where

Assurance becomes verifiable, not rhetorical.

Sovereign deployment expectations: assurance must work inside the boundary

Sovereignty changes the shape of the problem. For many programs, the system, the testing, and the evidence can’t drift outside the controlled boundary, not casually, not “just for analysis.”

So continuous assurance has to hold up when:

• Networks are segmented or air-gapped
• Toolchains are on-prem
• External integrations are limited or prohibited
• Evidence must remain in program-owned repositories
• Exports have to be controlled, deliberate, and auditable

That’s why this is more than a process tweak. It’s an architectural constraint.

If your assurance model depends on cloud services to function, it fails under sovereign constraints. If it requires intrusive components on mission systems, it creates new approval work and a new attack surface. Continuous assurance has to be achievable where the system lives, inside the secure lab, without negotiating exceptions every time you need proof.

What changes when evidence is continuous

When evidence is produced continuously, assurance stops being a cliff edge at the end. It becomes a steady build-up of proof that stays current.

Practically, that means:

• Less last-minute evidence pack scrambles
• Fewer delays caused by missing artifacts
• Earlier visibility of integration risk (where real failures live)
• Clearer readiness signals for leadership
• More confident go/no-go decisions because the evidence is current, not curated

The key point: you don’t “add a phase.” You stop paying the hidden cost of reconstructing proof later.

Lessons from the field: where the model pays off

When continuous evidence replaces milestone evidence, the same shift shows up again and again:

• Cadence improves because assurance doesn’t bottleneck at the end
• Coverage improves because teams stop avoiding tests that are painful to evidence
• Engineering time moves from repetition to analysis and risk reduction

And the advantage isn’t “faster testing.” It’s faster, defensible assurance under real constraints: sovereign environments, complex GUIs, multi-system workflows, and supplier-delivered components that must be verified end-to-end.

The human shift: from paperwork production to risk intelligence

This is the part most people don’t say out loud.

When evidence packs are automated and traceability is continuous, assurance teams stop burning their best people on admin work with a technical badge on it: chasing screenshots, rebuilding reports, reconciling versions, rewriting the same justification in five formats.

They get to do the work humans are actually good at:

• Spotting weak signals before they become program issues
• Challenging assumptions that toolchains quietly bake in
• Pushing coverage into the risky paths teams avoid
• Making risk visible early enough to do something about it

That’s the end-state: move faster without increasing residual risk, because assurance is continuous, evidence-led, supplier-verifiable, and sovereign by design.

Keysight Eggplant: built for sovereign, evidence-led testing

Most testing tools assume open access: APIs you can call, agents you can install, cloud services you can lean on, and logs you can ship off for analysis. That’s not how a lot of defense testing works.

Keysight Eggplant is built for environments where the boundary is fixed, and the proof has to stand up on its own.

• Non-invasive by design
  Drives the system the way a user does, visually, so you can test mission UIs and locked-down applications without needing source code access or intrusive agents.
• Evidence-by-default, not evidence-afterward
  Every run can generate the artifacts assurance teams actually need: step outcomes tied to requirements, logs, screenshots, timestamps, environment identity, and full run context, so you’re not rebuilding evidence packs near the gate.
• Works inside the boundary
  Designed to run on-premises in secure labs and segmented networks, where external integrations are limited and data residency is not optional.
• Coverage across the messy parts of the stack
  From embedded and specialist systems through to enterprise apps and operational dashboards, so you can validate end-to-end workflows where integration risk lives.
• Traceability that survives change
  As suppliers update components and configurations shift, you can keep a defensible line from requirement → test → run → artifacts → outcome, without turning every release into a re-justification exercise.

The net effect is straightforward: less time spent reconstructing proof, fewer “prove it again” loops, and clearer readiness signals based on current evidence—not curated narratives.

The direction of travel

The next phase of QA defense isn’t about chasing novelty. It’s about keeping pace without letting residual risk creep up.

Teams will keep automating, but the real gain comes when automation is paired with continuous assurance: the ability to generate defensible evidence on every run, inside sovereign constraints, and across supplier boundaries.

That’s what changes the program experience. Fewer late-cycle scrambles. Fewer debates about what’s “real.” Faster identification of integration risk. And release decisions made on facts that are up to date.

Visit our dedicated A&D software testing page for more information.

 

A Healthy Workplace Environment: What Does This Mean?

We spend nearly 90% of our lives indoors whether at work, at home, or in transit. Yet indoor air quality is often overlooked when discussing health and wellbeing. Elevated carbon dioxide (CO₂), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from furniture, finishes, cleaning products and fragrances, and pollutants entering buildings from traffic, energy generation, dust, agriculture, and waste activities all contribute to the air we breathe indoors.

Poor indoor air quality affects more than comfort. Short-term exposure can lead to eye irritation, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating, symptoms often grouped under “Sick Building Syndrome”, and frequently misattributed to stress or workload. Over time, chronic exposure to air pollution, both indoors and outdoors, has been linked to more serious outcomes including cardiovascular disease, stroke, respiratory illness, certain cancers, and emerging evidence suggests possible associations with neurodegenerative conditions.

The World Health Organization has long highlighted that indoor air pollution remains a major but under-recognized public health issue. Globally, air pollution contributes to millions of premature deaths each year, with a significant proportion associated with indoor exposure. While access to clean drinking water is widely recognized as a basic right, access to clean air receives far less attention despite being equally fundamental.

Air quality also directly affects workplace performance. Research consistently shows that cognitive function, productivity, and decision-making decline in poorly ventilated environments. Even moderate improvements in ventilation and pollutant reduction have been associated with measurable gains in work performance, sometimes in the range of several percentage points.

 

Occupational Health and Exposure: What’s Safe?

Air contains a mixture of gases and microscopic particles known as particulate matter (PM). Among these, PM2.5, particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller, are of particular concern. These particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, potentially affecting multiple organs. Because they are invisible to the naked eye, their presence often goes unnoticed without monitoring.

Many countries set legal limits for ambient air pollution. However, regulatory thresholds do not necessarily represent a “safe” level of exposure. For example, in several jurisdictions, legal limits for PM2.5 remain significantly higher than the guideline values recommended by the World Health Organization. Although overall trends may show improvement, exposure levels in many regions continue to exceed health-based recommendations.

Workplace regulations typically focus on ventilation and control of hazardous substances. In the UK, for example, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations require employers to provide sufficient fresh or purified air in enclosed workplaces. Guidance further states that supplied air should be free from impurities likely to cause ill health. Substances covered under COSHH regulations must be controlled where present, and Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) apply to specific hazardous substances.

However, being below a regulatory limit does not automatically mean that exposure poses no risk, particularly when considering long-term, low-level exposure or cumulative effects. Moreover, offices and similar workplaces are often not formally classified as “sensitive receptors” in air quality planning guidance, and there is typically no explicit legal requirement to conduct routine indoor air quality assessments.

Despite this, increasing numbers of organizations are proactively assessing and improving their indoor environments. Motivations vary: reducing absenteeism, enhancing employee wellbeing, meeting ESG commitments, improving productivity, mitigating potential legal liability, or aligning with broader sustainability goals.

At its core, the issue is straightforward. Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe and healthy working environment. As scientific understanding of air quality evolves, expectations around what constitutes a “healthy” indoor environment are evolving too.

 

Practical Steps to Improve Indoor Air Quality

While awareness of indoor air quality (IAQ) has grown significantly, many organizations struggle with the how! Improving IAQ does not always require large-scale investment. Targeted, practical measures can deliver measurable benefits for both employee well-being and operational performance.

Starting with a strong baseline ensures interventions are driven by the data, not emotion. Spot measurements or continuous monitoring can reveal elevated CO₂, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A foundation based on data matters and without it, organizations risk spending time and capital on fixes that feel good but don’t address the actual problem (if one exists at all!).

Ventilation remains one of the most effective levers available. Verify that HVAC systems are operating as designed and align practices with current ASHRAE (The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) standards for occupancy-based ventilation which includes controlling airflow volume, outside air intake, temperature, humidity, and filtration.

Routine maintenance is equally important. Poorly maintained systems can become a source of contamination. Regular inspection and cleaning of HVAC components, including ducts, coils, and filters, helps maintain performance and prevents the buildup of dust, mold, and other contaminants. Routine inspection and cleaning is foundational, not optional.

Organizations should also focus on source control. This includes evaluating building materials, cleaning products, and workplace processes that may introduce pollutants into the indoor environment. Substituting lower-emission products and implementing proper storage and handling practices can reduce exposure risks at the source.

By taking a structured and proactive approach, organizations can move beyond compliance to create indoor environments that actively support health, productivity, and long-term resilience.

 

Check out how we can help multinational corporations with our air quality services in any location.

 

Inogen Alliance is a global network made up of over 70 of independent local businesses and over 6,000 consultants around the world who can help make your project a success. Our Associates collaborate closely to serve multinational corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, and we share knowledge and industry experience to provide the highest quality service to our clients. If you want to learn more about how you can work with Inogen Alliance, you can explore our Associates or Contact Us. Watch for more News & Blog updates, listen to our podcast and follow us on LinkedIn.

A Healthy Workplace Environment: What Does This Mean?

We spend nearly 90% of our lives indoors whether at work, at home, or in transit. Yet indoor air quality is often overlooked when discussing health and wellbeing. Elevated carbon dioxide (CO₂), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from furniture, finishes, cleaning products and fragrances, and pollutants entering buildings from traffic, energy generation, dust, agriculture, and waste activities all contribute to the air we breathe indoors.

Poor indoor air quality affects more than comfort. Short-term exposure can lead to eye irritation, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating, symptoms often grouped under “Sick Building Syndrome”, and frequently misattributed to stress or workload. Over time, chronic exposure to air pollution, both indoors and outdoors, has been linked to more serious outcomes including cardiovascular disease, stroke, respiratory illness, certain cancers, and emerging evidence suggests possible associations with neurodegenerative conditions.

The World Health Organization has long highlighted that indoor air pollution remains a major but under-recognized public health issue. Globally, air pollution contributes to millions of premature deaths each year, with a significant proportion associated with indoor exposure. While access to clean drinking water is widely recognized as a basic right, access to clean air receives far less attention despite being equally fundamental.

Air quality also directly affects workplace performance. Research consistently shows that cognitive function, productivity, and decision-making decline in poorly ventilated environments. Even moderate improvements in ventilation and pollutant reduction have been associated with measurable gains in work performance, sometimes in the range of several percentage points.

 

Occupational Health and Exposure: What’s Safe?

Air contains a mixture of gases and microscopic particles known as particulate matter (PM). Among these, PM2.5, particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller, are of particular concern. These particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, potentially affecting multiple organs. Because they are invisible to the naked eye, their presence often goes unnoticed without monitoring.

Many countries set legal limits for ambient air pollution. However, regulatory thresholds do not necessarily represent a “safe” level of exposure. For example, in several jurisdictions, legal limits for PM2.5 remain significantly higher than the guideline values recommended by the World Health Organization. Although overall trends may show improvement, exposure levels in many regions continue to exceed health-based recommendations.

Workplace regulations typically focus on ventilation and control of hazardous substances. In the UK, for example, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations require employers to provide sufficient fresh or purified air in enclosed workplaces. Guidance further states that supplied air should be free from impurities likely to cause ill health. Substances covered under COSHH regulations must be controlled where present, and Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) apply to specific hazardous substances.

However, being below a regulatory limit does not automatically mean that exposure poses no risk, particularly when considering long-term, low-level exposure or cumulative effects. Moreover, offices and similar workplaces are often not formally classified as “sensitive receptors” in air quality planning guidance, and there is typically no explicit legal requirement to conduct routine indoor air quality assessments.

Despite this, increasing numbers of organizations are proactively assessing and improving their indoor environments. Motivations vary: reducing absenteeism, enhancing employee wellbeing, meeting ESG commitments, improving productivity, mitigating potential legal liability, or aligning with broader sustainability goals.

At its core, the issue is straightforward. Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe and healthy working environment. As scientific understanding of air quality evolves, expectations around what constitutes a “healthy” indoor environment are evolving too.

 

Practical Steps to Improve Indoor Air Quality

While awareness of indoor air quality (IAQ) has grown significantly, many organizations struggle with the how! Improving IAQ does not always require large-scale investment. Targeted, practical measures can deliver measurable benefits for both employee well-being and operational performance.

Starting with a strong baseline ensures interventions are driven by the data, not emotion. Spot measurements or continuous monitoring can reveal elevated CO₂, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A foundation based on data matters and without it, organizations risk spending time and capital on fixes that feel good but don’t address the actual problem (if one exists at all!).

Ventilation remains one of the most effective levers available. Verify that HVAC systems are operating as designed and align practices with current ASHRAE (The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) standards for occupancy-based ventilation which includes controlling airflow volume, outside air intake, temperature, humidity, and filtration.

Routine maintenance is equally important. Poorly maintained systems can become a source of contamination. Regular inspection and cleaning of HVAC components, including ducts, coils, and filters, helps maintain performance and prevents the buildup of dust, mold, and other contaminants. Routine inspection and cleaning is foundational, not optional.

Organizations should also focus on source control. This includes evaluating building materials, cleaning products, and workplace processes that may introduce pollutants into the indoor environment. Substituting lower-emission products and implementing proper storage and handling practices can reduce exposure risks at the source.

By taking a structured and proactive approach, organizations can move beyond compliance to create indoor environments that actively support health, productivity, and long-term resilience.

 

Check out how we can help multinational corporations with our air quality services in any location.

 

Inogen Alliance is a global network made up of over 70 of independent local businesses and over 6,000 consultants around the world who can help make your project a success. Our Associates collaborate closely to serve multinational corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, and we share knowledge and industry experience to provide the highest quality service to our clients. If you want to learn more about how you can work with Inogen Alliance, you can explore our Associates or Contact Us. Watch for more News & Blog updates, listen to our podcast and follow us on LinkedIn.

A Healthy Workplace Environment: What Does This Mean?

We spend nearly 90% of our lives indoors whether at work, at home, or in transit. Yet indoor air quality is often overlooked when discussing health and wellbeing. Elevated carbon dioxide (CO₂), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from furniture, finishes, cleaning products and fragrances, and pollutants entering buildings from traffic, energy generation, dust, agriculture, and waste activities all contribute to the air we breathe indoors.

Poor indoor air quality affects more than comfort. Short-term exposure can lead to eye irritation, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating, symptoms often grouped under “Sick Building Syndrome”, and frequently misattributed to stress or workload. Over time, chronic exposure to air pollution, both indoors and outdoors, has been linked to more serious outcomes including cardiovascular disease, stroke, respiratory illness, certain cancers, and emerging evidence suggests possible associations with neurodegenerative conditions.

The World Health Organization has long highlighted that indoor air pollution remains a major but under-recognized public health issue. Globally, air pollution contributes to millions of premature deaths each year, with a significant proportion associated with indoor exposure. While access to clean drinking water is widely recognized as a basic right, access to clean air receives far less attention despite being equally fundamental.

Air quality also directly affects workplace performance. Research consistently shows that cognitive function, productivity, and decision-making decline in poorly ventilated environments. Even moderate improvements in ventilation and pollutant reduction have been associated with measurable gains in work performance, sometimes in the range of several percentage points.

 

Occupational Health and Exposure: What’s Safe?

Air contains a mixture of gases and microscopic particles known as particulate matter (PM). Among these, PM2.5, particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller, are of particular concern. These particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, potentially affecting multiple organs. Because they are invisible to the naked eye, their presence often goes unnoticed without monitoring.

Many countries set legal limits for ambient air pollution. However, regulatory thresholds do not necessarily represent a “safe” level of exposure. For example, in several jurisdictions, legal limits for PM2.5 remain significantly higher than the guideline values recommended by the World Health Organization. Although overall trends may show improvement, exposure levels in many regions continue to exceed health-based recommendations.

Workplace regulations typically focus on ventilation and control of hazardous substances. In the UK, for example, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations require employers to provide sufficient fresh or purified air in enclosed workplaces. Guidance further states that supplied air should be free from impurities likely to cause ill health. Substances covered under COSHH regulations must be controlled where present, and Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) apply to specific hazardous substances.

However, being below a regulatory limit does not automatically mean that exposure poses no risk, particularly when considering long-term, low-level exposure or cumulative effects. Moreover, offices and similar workplaces are often not formally classified as “sensitive receptors” in air quality planning guidance, and there is typically no explicit legal requirement to conduct routine indoor air quality assessments.

Despite this, increasing numbers of organizations are proactively assessing and improving their indoor environments. Motivations vary: reducing absenteeism, enhancing employee wellbeing, meeting ESG commitments, improving productivity, mitigating potential legal liability, or aligning with broader sustainability goals.

At its core, the issue is straightforward. Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe and healthy working environment. As scientific understanding of air quality evolves, expectations around what constitutes a “healthy” indoor environment are evolving too.

 

Practical Steps to Improve Indoor Air Quality

While awareness of indoor air quality (IAQ) has grown significantly, many organizations struggle with the how! Improving IAQ does not always require large-scale investment. Targeted, practical measures can deliver measurable benefits for both employee well-being and operational performance.

Starting with a strong baseline ensures interventions are driven by the data, not emotion. Spot measurements or continuous monitoring can reveal elevated CO₂, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A foundation based on data matters and without it, organizations risk spending time and capital on fixes that feel good but don’t address the actual problem (if one exists at all!).

Ventilation remains one of the most effective levers available. Verify that HVAC systems are operating as designed and align practices with current ASHRAE (The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) standards for occupancy-based ventilation which includes controlling airflow volume, outside air intake, temperature, humidity, and filtration.

Routine maintenance is equally important. Poorly maintained systems can become a source of contamination. Regular inspection and cleaning of HVAC components, including ducts, coils, and filters, helps maintain performance and prevents the buildup of dust, mold, and other contaminants. Routine inspection and cleaning is foundational, not optional.

Organizations should also focus on source control. This includes evaluating building materials, cleaning products, and workplace processes that may introduce pollutants into the indoor environment. Substituting lower-emission products and implementing proper storage and handling practices can reduce exposure risks at the source.

By taking a structured and proactive approach, organizations can move beyond compliance to create indoor environments that actively support health, productivity, and long-term resilience.

 

Check out how we can help multinational corporations with our air quality services in any location.

 

Inogen Alliance is a global network made up of over 70 of independent local businesses and over 6,000 consultants around the world who can help make your project a success. Our Associates collaborate closely to serve multinational corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, and we share knowledge and industry experience to provide the highest quality service to our clients. If you want to learn more about how you can work with Inogen Alliance, you can explore our Associates or Contact Us. Watch for more News & Blog updates, listen to our podcast and follow us on LinkedIn.

ATLANTA, May 8, 2026 /3BL/ – Georgia-Pacific announced that Nick Trainer has been named vice president, market sales of GP PRO. In this role, Trainer will lead market sales strategy and execution, strengthen customer partnerships, and drive growth across the business.

“I’m excited to have Nick rejoin the Georgia-Pacific family. His strong leadership experience and deep knowledge of our industry will help us continue to deliver superior value to our customers,” said Nate Medina, senior vice president and general sales manager, GP PRO.

Georgia-Pacific named Nick Trainer vice president, market sales of GP PRO. Trainer will lead market sales strategy and execution, strengthen customer partnerships, and drive growth across the business.

Prior to rejoining GP PRO, Trainer served as senior vice president of sales and marketing at Handgards, a manufacturer and supplier of foodservice disposable products focused on food safety and cross-contamination prevention.

During his 18-year tenure at Georgia-Pacific, Trainer held several leadership roles, including Southern regional sales manager and vice president and general manager of the GP PRO Tissue and Wiper business. In that role, he drove significant growth of the Compact tissue business, led the launch of multiple new products across categories, and advanced key investments in manufacturing. He also helped shape category strategy, strengthen customer engagement, and accelerate innovation across GP PRO.

Earlier in his career, Trainer held sales leadership roles at Unisource and Kimberly-Clark.

In addition, Ryan Elwart has been named senior vice president, sales and innovation for GP Foodservice Solutions, the company’s new business that includes Dixie® and Anchor Packaging. In this role, Elwart will lead transformation efforts for Georgia-Pacific’s away-from-home foodservice disposables — driving growth across categories and bringing together the Georgia-Pacific and Anchor sales teams.

Georgia-Pacific today named Ryan Elwart senior vice president, sales and innovation for GP Foodservice Solutions. Elwart will lead Georgia-Pacific’s away-from-home foodservice disposables initiatives.

“I’m delighted to have Ryan rejoin the GP family. His strong commercial leadership experience, deep understanding of our customers and industry, and proven ability to drive growth at scale position him to make an immediate impact,” said Chris Warburton, chief customer officer of Georgia-Pacific’s Consumer Products group. “He will play a key role in accelerating our foodservice business by strengthening customer partnerships and advancing innovative solutions to better serve a growing market.”

Prior to joining GP Foodservice Solutions, Elwart served as Group President at Mativ, where he oversaw multiple categories and segments across the business. He led efforts to strengthen company performance, build commercial capabilities, and unlock strategies to drive growth with customers across the marketplace. He also led the Sustainable & Adhesive Solutions business unit, driving alignment across sales, marketing, sales operations, and research and development to improve execution, drive innovation and scale best practices.

Elwart previously spent 16 years with Georgia-Pacific, including serving as chief customer officer for the Consumer Products Group. In that role, he led a combined sales and commercial capability organization spanning retail and B2B sales, eCommerce, training, customer planning, category management, and sales strategy across the company’s retail and commercial businesses.

Earlier in his career, Elwart held leadership roles at PepsiCo and Hormel Foods and has extensive experience across customer- and consumer-facing businesses.

About Georgia-Pacific 

Based in Atlanta, Georgia-Pacific and its subsidiaries are among the world’s leading manufacturers and marketers of bath tissue, paper towels and napkins, tableware, paper-based packaging, cellulose and building products. Our familiar consumer brands include Angel Soft®, Brawny®, Dixie®, enMotion®, Quilted Northern®, Sparkle® and Vanity Fair®.

Georgia-Pacific has long been a leading supplier of building products to lumber and building materials dealers and large do-it-yourself warehouse retailers. Its Georgia-Pacific Recycling subsidiary is among the world’s largest traders of paper, metal and plastics. The company operates more than 150 facilities and employs approximately 30,000 people directly and creates more than 80,000 jobs indirectly. For more information, visit: gp.com/about-us. For news, visit: news.gp.com. Follow Georgia-Pacific on LinkedIn, Meta, Instagram, X and YouTube.

About GP PRO

Based in Atlanta, Georgia-Pacific and its subsidiaries are among the world’s leading manufacturers and marketers of bath tissue, paper towels and napkins, tableware, paper-based packaging, cellulose and building products. The company operates approximately 150 facilities and employs approximately 30,000 people directly and creates nearly 80,000 jobs indirectly. GP PRO, a division of Georgia-Pacific, manufactures and sells well-known brands like enMotion^®, Compact^®, Angel Soft^® Professional Series, Brawny^®, Dixie^®, Pacific Blue™ and the KOLO^® Smart Monitoring System. GP PRO products meet restroom, foodservice, and break room needs for office buildings, healthcare, foodservice, high traffic, lodging, retail, and education facilities, plus a wide range of industrial and manufacturing facilities in North America. For more information, visit: gppro.com.