I came across a recent case over here where the auditor insist that one must have a policy section where you must have at least a few sentences to describe how you are going to address a particular clause of the standard. Without which, it will be interpreted that you had not met the requirements of the standard and an NC worded in the same manner as that brought out by the OP. (This was resolved after the auditee insisted that he gets a second opinion from head office). I am wondering if the original poster is facing the same issue.
From what I understand over here, this was the interpretation or way it was done for the pre-2000 versions and some auditors had not updated their knowledge since.
From what I understand over here, this was the interpretation or way it was done for the pre-2000 versions and some auditors had not updated their knowledge since.
And this is why so many Quality Manuals are just regurgitations of the standard.

