We do not perform "servicing" in the classical sense. API defines servicing so that any time a newly manufactured part leaves your facility, if it comes back within 5 minutes from failing a receiving inspection and needs to be reworked to resolve an NCR, those dickheads at API call that servicing.
I say bull. So in my procedure, I basically say "we do not perform any field servicing (as in going out to where the product is and actually servicing the part)" and all orders/product we manufacture is new product/parts (we aren't re-working API threaded connections that have been used). The only activity we perform which is considered by API (and only API) as servicing is the rework of a new product that is returned to us due to a non-conformance.
So I state in my procedure that our "servicing" is 100% governed and controlled by our "control of non-conforming product" procedure, being that anything that comes back to us is returned to us with an external NCR. At which point the WO is re-opened, and the original procedures and controls which govern production are applicable (i.e. - traceability, receiving inspection, production provision, inspections, control or records, control of documents, ect).
Long story short, my servicing procedure basically says we don't perform most aspects of servicing, and the servicing we do perform is controlled by our "control of non-conforming product" procedure.
API auditor was very impressed with our QMS. He didn't like the servicing procedure, but he wrote it up as a concern and not a finding. He agrees with me on what servicing is and is not, but he has to audit it as API has worded the spec, whether or not he and I disagree with API and Ed Durant's definition of servicing.