A nonconformance record identifies where an output or process does not meet a defined requirement. Write the requirement, observed evidence and difference clearly so the responsible person can decide the appropriate response.
The record should not become an unsupported allegation about a person or an automatic instruction to repair, discard or accept the output. Those decisions need the relevant competence and authority.
Establish the applicable requirement
Identify the approved specification, instruction or other requirement, including the relevant version. Check that it applies to the output being reviewed.
Quality practice distinguishes an observed failure to meet a requirement from its cause and the action taken afterwards. The American Society for Quality’s root-cause analysis guidance provides broader context for investigating causes; the record below is an original administrative example, not a certified quality-system template.
Do not label a preference as a nonconformance if no applicable requirement establishes it. Refer uncertainty to the requirement owner.
Use a record structure
Capture:
- Reference: stable identifier and date identified.
- Output: item, document or process and relevant traceability.
- Requirement: specific current criterion and source.
- Evidence: what was actually observed or checked.
- Difference: factual gap between requirement and result.
- Immediate response: authorised containment or referral, if relevant.
- Decision: person responsible for disposition and next action.
- Follow-up: investigation, correction and verification required.
- Closure: evidence and authorised confirmation.
Keep sensitive case details in the appropriate restricted process. A broad quality summary can use a reference rather than repeat personal information.
A fictional document example
In this invented office exercise, the approved reporting instruction requires a booking reference on every summary. A reviewed summary lacks that field. The record identifies the instruction version, the specific summary and the missing information.
It says “booking reference absent” rather than “the employee is careless”. The document owner decides the appropriate immediate response and whether further investigation is needed.
The example concerns a defined office output. It does not authorise an unqualified person to assess structural, electrical, clinical or other specialist work.
Keep response and cause separate
Correcting the one summary can address that output. It does not establish why the omission occurred or whether other summaries are affected. To use a fictional quality-record example as skills evidence, follow the approach in our practical workplace skills guide: explain what you observed, how you checked the requirement and where you referred the decision.
If investigation is needed, assign it through the approved process and link its findings. Consider the relevant scope without assuming every similar document is wrong.
Where an output must be held, reworked or accepted under an exception, obtain the authorised decision and record the conditions. Do not choose a convenient status merely to close the log.
Verify before closure
Check the actual result of the approved action against the requirement. Confirm any required review and retained evidence, including unresolved follow-up that belongs in another record.
Review recurring findings for a process issue, using evidence rather than a count alone. A useful nonconformance record makes the requirement and observed gap understandable and gives the responsible people a traceable path from detection to authorised resolution.
