Original sample lesson · allow approximately 10–15 minutes
By the end of this lesson
Write a nonconformity in three parts, the requirement, the evidence and the statement, using an original example.
A nonconformity is read by people who were not in the room: the auditee's managers, the audit client and, months later, the auditor who checks the corrective action. Each of them must be able to find the same requirement and the same records, and reach the same conclusion. That is why a nonconformity is written in three parts, and why each part has its own job.
The requirement is cited exactly: the document, its revision and the clause. The evidence is stated as facts that someone else can check again, such as record numbers, places, dates and how many items were sampled. The statement of nonconformity then says, in one sentence, how the evidence fails the requirement. Opinions, blame and advice on how to fix the problem stay out of all three parts.
Here is an original example. A machine shop's procedure QP-21, revision B, clause 4.3, says that production of a new job does not start until quality has approved its first-article inspection report. The auditor samples 14 of the 37 jobs started in the week of October 6. For jobs 5512 and 5530, the travelers show production starting at 07:10 and 13:45 on October 7, but the first-article reports were approved at 09:20 and 15:30 that day. The other 12 jobs conform.
The finding therefore reads: requirement, QP-21 revision B, clause 4.3; evidence, the two job numbers with their start and approval times, 2 of 14 sampled jobs; statement, production started on two jobs before quality approved their first-article inspection reports. Anyone can now pull the same travelers and reports and confirm the facts without asking the auditor what was meant.
Notice what the finding leaves out. It does not call the shop careless, it does not name the setup operator, and it does not ask for a software lock. Why the jobs started early is a question for the auditee's root cause analysis, and the fix belongs to the corrective action that follows. When that action is verified, the same three parts show what to sample again and what to compare it with.
Check 1: In the example, which item belongs to the evidence?
Check 2: The shop's supervisor says the two jobs started early because a customer needed parts urgently. What should the auditor do with this explanation?
Check 3: Two months later, the auditor returns to verify the shop's corrective action. Which evidence best shows that it worked?
Take it into your study session
Write a one-sentence explanation of the principle, then describe a situation where the wrong answer would create a problem. Revisit the questions tomorrow without looking at the explanations first.
Continue with CQA
The complete course includes the full lecture library, more examples, checkpoints, quizzes and practice exams.