Corrective Action Review

Corrective work needs an owner who can explain the cause and carry out the response. The Quality Manager records the root cause, action and due date against the linked nonconformance. Planned, Approved, Implementing, Effectiveness Review and Closed distinguish the action’s progress from the state of the original failure.

The Quality Approver makes the effectiveness decision after implementation. The review history retains the decision and supporting evidence with the reviewer and review date. That history helps the team understand why an action was accepted or rejected, including when a later review follows an unsuccessful attempt.

• Action planning. The Quality Manager records the proposed response and assigns its owner. The approved plan sets the work to carry out before the action moves into implementation. Agree the plan approval responsibility during setup.
• Evidence review. The owner brings the completed work to Effectiveness Review. The Quality Approver checks the exact linked failure and the evidence supporting the decision, then accepts effective work through the review process.
• Failure closure. An accepted action can close, but the linked nonconformance closes only when all of its corrective actions are accepted. A rejected review remains part of the history and cannot be treated as successful completion.

Define what evidence demonstrates effectiveness for the pilot problem. Repairing a damaged fixture may demonstrate completion of the physical task; checking the fixture in use may provide the evidence needed for the effectiveness decision. The reviewer and owner should agree that distinction before the work starts.

Confirm the authenticated reviewer mapping and who may access the review history. Decide how the team will handle unsuccessful reviews without overwriting the earlier decision. Agree the action approval responsibility separately from effectiveness review, and make sure the owner knows which decision is needed at each point. Keep the due date useful by reviewing outstanding work against the actual operating schedule.

Use a nonconformance with a fixture repair action and a handling-method action. The repair owner completes the work and submits it for effectiveness review. The Quality Approver checks the evidence and accepts the repair. The action reaches Closed while the nonconformance stays open because the handling-method action still needs acceptance.

Next, submit a review for the method change with insufficient evidence. Confirm that the unsuccessful result remains visible and does not close the failure. When the owner brings adequate evidence, review it through the supported path and confirm the final closure. Repeat an unchanged decision request after a delayed response: the review should retain the existing effect. If the request changes while reusing the same operation identity, it should conflict rather than rewrite the decision.

Ask a different team member to reconstruct the sequence from the review history. They should be able to identify the action, the reviewer and the evidence behind each decision without relying on a verbal explanation from the original owner.

• Effectiveness Review Queue — Actions waiting for the decision on whether the completed work addresses the failure.
• My Corrective Actions — Owned corrective work with its due date and current stage.

Rehearse Correction to effectiveness, then use Standards and acknowledgments for any resulting instruction change.