How to Write Nonconformity Statements That Drive Action
How to write audit findings that are clear, evidence-based and lead to real corrective action
Key takeaways
- A good nonconformity has three parts: the requirement, the objective evidence, and the statement of what is not met.
- Findings must be factual and verifiable, never opinions or advice.
- Grade findings consistently: a major nonconformity indicates a system failure or a risk to product or service conformity; a minor one is an isolated lapse.
- Write for the reader who was not there: the process owner, top management, or another auditor six months later.
- A well-written finding makes root cause analysis easier and corrective action more effective.
1. Why finding quality matters
The audit report is often the only thing management reads. If a finding is vague (“document control needs improvement”) or argumentative (“staff do not care about hygiene”), it will be disputed or ignored. If it is precise, it becomes the starting point for real improvement.
2. The three-part structure
| Part | Question it answers | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | What should happen, and where is it stated? | ISO 9001:2026 clause 7.1.5.2 and procedure P12 require measuring equipment used for product release to be calibrated at defined intervals. |
| Evidence | What did the auditor actually see, read or hear? | The checkweigher on Line 2 (asset CW-02) used for net-weight release had a calibration label dated 14 March 2025; the calibration plan shows a 12-month interval; no later calibration record was available. |
| Statement | What is not met, in one sentence? | Measuring equipment used for product release was not calibrated at the defined interval. |
Writing the statement last, after the requirement and evidence, keeps it factual.
3. The requirement: be specific
- Quote the source by reference: standard clause, procedure number, customer specification, legal requirement.
- Paraphrase; never copy the standard’s text into the report.
- If the organisation’s own procedure is stricter than the standard, the procedure is the requirement.
4. The evidence: be verifiable
Good evidence includes identifiers that allow someone else to find it again:
- Document or record number and revision.
- Batch, lot, asset or sample number.
- Date, time, shift, location.
- Role of the person interviewed (not their name, unless the organisation prefers).
- The size of the sample: “3 of the 10 records sampled”.
Avoid words such as “always”, “never”, “all” unless the evidence really covers everything.
5. Grading: major or minor?
| Grade | Typical criteria |
|---|---|
| Major nonconformity | Absence or total breakdown of a required process; a systemic failure across several samples or areas; a situation that could lead to unsafe or nonconforming product reaching the customer; a failure to address a previous finding |
| Minor nonconformity | An isolated lapse that does not, on its own, indicate a breakdown of the system |
| Observation / opportunity for improvement | Not a nonconformity, but a weakness or risk worth considering |
Certification schemes have their own grading rules (for example, critical, major and minor in BRCGS). Internal audit programmes should define grades in the procedure and train auditors to apply them consistently.
6. Words to avoid
| Avoid | Why | Better |
|---|---|---|
| “Poor”, “inadequate”, “weak” | Opinion, not evidence | Describe what was found |
| “Staff do not understand…” | Judgement about people | “Two of three operators interviewed could not describe…” |
| “Should implement a new system” | Advice, not a finding | Leave solutions to the auditee |
| “Several records were missing” | Vague | “4 of 12 daily records for May were not completed” |
7. From finding to corrective action
A clear finding helps the auditee to:
- Correct the immediate problem (recalibrate CW-02, assess product released since the due date).
- Investigate the root cause (why was the overdue calibration not detected?).
- Take corrective action on the cause (e.g. automated reminders, release check that blocks uncalibrated equipment).
- Check that the action is effective.
If the finding mixes several issues, root cause analysis becomes confused. One finding should cover one requirement.
8. Checklist before you submit the report
- Can the auditee understand the finding without having been in the audit?
- Is the requirement referenced precisely?
- Is every statement supported by evidence in the report?
- Is the grade justified?
- Was the finding presented and understood at the closing meeting?
Conclusion
Writing findings is a professional skill, not an administrative task. A clear requirement, verifiable evidence and a concise statement make audit results credible, reduce disputes and give the organisation what it needs to fix the real problem.
Take one finding from your last audit report and rewrite it in the three-part structure. Compare the two versions.