Writing non-conformities that lead to real corrective action

A weak non-conformity gets argued about. A strong one gets fixed. The difference is almost always structure rather than severity.

The three parts

• Requirement. The clause, procedure or legal obligation that applies. Quote it.
• Evidence. What you saw, where, and when. Names of records, batch numbers, locations, times.
• Deficiency. The gap between the two, stated plainly and without a proposed solution.

Why the solution is not your job

Suggesting the fix inside the finding moves ownership from the site to the auditor. It also narrows the root cause analysis to whatever you happened to think of on the day. State the gap; let the site work out why it exists.

A quick test

Read the finding back and ask whether someone who was not present could verify it independently. If they could not find the same record or the same location from your wording, it needs more evidence, not stronger language.