Nonconformances

A rejected inspection can raise a linked nonconformance for the failed scope. The record carries its detected date, severity and description, and points to the inspection that produced it. That link matters when several checks were recorded on the same subject: a corrective owner can return to the observation and evidence instead of working from a short issue title alone.

Quality Manager uses the nonconformance to keep the issue visible as it moves from Open through Containment, Investigation and Disposition to Closed. The record does not stand in for a full corrective action. corrective actions link back to the issue and carry their own owner, root cause, action, due date and status. Closure depends on all linked actions being closed after effectiveness review.

• Detect. Quality Approver rejects failed inspection scope after reviewing required check results and raises the linked issue.
• Contain. Quality Manager records the problem and follows the issue through containment and investigation.
• Resolve. Corrective owners complete approved actions; the issue closes only after linked actions close.

Severity is selected as Minor, Major or Critical. Decide what each means for the team’s response and who needs to see the issue at each stage. The description should identify the failed condition in terms a person investigating it can verify. A status change alone should never erase the inspection context.

Agree how rejected scope is described when one inspection has both passing and failing checks. Use the inspection link to retain the complete check history, then describe the specific failed condition on the nonconformance. Assign responsibility for containment and for starting linked corrective action work. Decide who records the Disposition decision and what evidence the reviewer needs before the issue is eligible to close.

People assigned to actions must be connected to Users so each owner can find their work. A nonconformance has no separate owner reference; its corrective actions carry owners. Quality Manager should therefore review both the issue and its linked actions when asking who must act next.

A Final inspection for Q-104 finds a surface defect. The Quality Approver rejects the failed scope after seeing the Inspector’s check result, observation and attachment. The linked nonconformance is recorded with a Major severity and a description of the defect. Quality Manager follows containment and investigation, then the team records a corrective action for the root cause.

If two corrective actions are linked to that issue, closing one is not enough. The correction workflow requires every linked action to be Closed before the nonconformance reaches Closed. During rehearsal, leave one action in effectiveness review and confirm the issue stays open. This distinguishes completed work from verified resolution and gives the reviewer a clear reason to withhold closure.

A failed check without usable evidence should be handled before the inspection leaves the Inspector’s queue. It should not become a vague issue that the corrective owner has to reconstruct. Keep the observation and attachment at the source, then use the nonconformance description to explain the scope of the failure.

• Open nonconformances — Issues still in containment, investigation or disposition, with severity and source inspection.
• Actions for effectiveness review — Linked corrective work awaiting the independent check needed for closure.

See disposition and containment and corrective action.