I have attached AH7115, the PRI handbook for audits to AC7115 for the manufacture of Elastomeric Seals. Don’t worry; it is a document in the public domain. It resides on www.eauditnet.com. Anyone can register for free and the document is located under “Public Documents.”

Question 8.5.2 is of particular interest to me. The checklist asks a simple question: “Do the weighed ingredients meet the tolerance?” The Handbook goes on to guide the auditor to “Make sure the actual weight is recorded, signed and dated by the operator.” There are various occurrences of adding additional requirements in the handbook that are not specified in the checklist.

The handbook states in 2.2 that the checklist takes precedence over the handbook; in 1.2 the handbook says it clarifies, explains and emphasizes requirements … in the AC7115 checklist. I called a PRI staff engineer to get a clarification and I asked the question: “Will an auditor declare a nonconformance for a condition that is cited in the handbook, even though it is not in the checklist?” I got a flat out “yes.” Given that reply, paragraph 1.2 should read “and adds certain requirements not stated in the checklist.”

Does anyone else see the folly in this? NADCAP seems to be able to do as they please even if it is nonsensical. They started out with AS7115, a standard. When they couldn’t get that standard amended the way they wanted, they changed their NADCAP certifications to cite the associated checklist because they controlled the checklist and amended it as they pleased. Now they add requirements to the handbook that they couldn’t agree to for the checklist. It’s pretty highhanded and I suppose similar in other commodities and services.

The current drive is to put the guidance into the actual checklist to avoid such conditions.Makes it easyer on the auditor and those being audited to have all the required info in a single place.
As covered in other discussions there is a strong push with in the PRI orginization to eliminate the various task groups strive to "improve" the industry by invloking requirements that are not part of industry standards. Nadcap is an audit body not a rule making one. Trouble is you have some strong willed task group members who want PRI to cover all their specific needs and improve the world.

The recording of actual variable data is a requirement that extends accross all groups. It is stronger for those that look at historical job audits based on the logic that with out it how can they know if the process was correct.
I guess the trouble is there are way to many findings that are issued because the data does indeed show that the process was performed out of spec and still accepted. I do not know where the balance should be but agree that some of the data recorning has gotten out of hand.:2cents: