Bottom line. There are precious few planners/schedulers who have that depth of field experience, which explains the TRUTH about why so many projects run LATE and/or OVER BUDGET. https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/pmwj133-Sep2023-Giammalvo-futility-of-master-plans-prepared-with-little-or-no-hands-on-experience.pdf

When I was actively involved with the GAO as an “independent consultant” when compiling BOTH the Cost and Scheduling “best tested and PROVEN” practices, those of us contributing from the roles of CONTRACTORS are not looking at the schedule for AUDITING but as FORECASTING- as a RESOURCE ALLOCATION/MANAGEMENT TOOL and to serve as DEFENSIVE (or OFFENSIVE) purpose to protect us against claims and help to perfect or substantiate our claims against the OWNERS DELAYS and CHANGE ORDERS. VERY DIFFERENT from how the NDIA and private sector contractors need or use the CPM schedule. https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/pmwj133-Sep2023-Giammalvo-futility-of-master-plans-prepared-with-little-or-no-hands-on-experience.pdf

And IF the CPM schedule has NOTHING to do with EVM, then why do they bother with SV or SPI? Or the false and misleading claims by PMI and Walt Lipske with their claims about “Earned Schedule”? Wayne Abba and I have agreed since PMI and Lipske made that claim both Wayne and I agreed that “Earned Time” and “Earned Schedule” have always dated back to the ORIGINS of Earned Value, from the Industrial Revolution, which we still see in use today in shoes and clothing (and nearly all other factories, as well as “job shops” like Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Auto mechanics, Barbers, Hair Dressers, Engineers and anyone else who offers their services on a “walk-in” basis that is sold on a “Unit Completed” basis) in the form of what is known as “piecework.” https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/pmwj121-Sep2022-Giammalvo-origins-and-history-of-evm-a-contractors-perspective.pdf

That Plan is called the Integrtaed Master Plan (IMP)
The IMP is part of the proposal, with its
– Program Event
– Significant Accomplishments
– Accomplish Criteria

With the IMP, the Integrated Master Schedule can be developed, and placed on baseline to be reviewed at the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR). The Tasks and their Work Packages in the IMS, feed the Accomplishment Criteria. These items can follow several topologies, Iterative and Incremental is the common one for software intensive systems in our domain. But the structure of the IMS changes are the program proceeds dependent on the changes tot eh baseline as the program proceeds, through the Change control process during execution.
But the IMP and it’s SAs and ACs requires a contract change, since those are the basis of progress payments from the contract.

2167A installs rhe Integrated Master Plan, just a 2167 did.
Yes the “fully detailed plan” is on Baseline as part of the contract award. The detailed sequence of work is also on baseline starting with the propose and cannot be changed without a Contractural Baseline Change process.
This is contractual process of DoD acquisition. It may not be your domains process, but it is our.
Any changes are made through the formal Change Control process.
But since the IMP is NOT the schedule, the actual structure of the work processes are not defined in 2167.
Figure 1 in 2167A is NOT a schedule it is a PLAN, defined by the Program Events – this are NOT milestones. The Program Events (PEs) SRR, SDR, … PDR, CDR, TRR not milestones,
Program events as described in the IMP-IMS Step-by-Step guide I sent before and restated here with a DoD Logo https://tinyurl.com/yk3zlq8c

2167A (1988) replaces 2167 (1985) which was an iterative standard. While 2167A (1988) states any method can be used, it explicitly requires a fully detailed plan to be prepared before work starts and specifies the testing sequence – waterfall in all but name.
2167A was replaced by MIL-STD-498 in 1994 which was more amenable to iterative developments.