I mean where do we start with this?
1) An audit that claims to be auditing the current process on the grounds of continual improvement is sampling records from 2+ years ago
2) a) The claim that the job sheet should have been ticked. Should it? Is there evidence that supports this?
b) Unless you have a procedure somewhere that states 'all job sheets must have all sections ticked' then this isn't even a nonconformity
3) Logging 'explanation needed' rather than actually going out to find the explanation in the course of the audit.
4) Recommendations given alongside audit findings. Auditors should not try to act as consultants. No good can ever come out of this
5) Increasing the sample size once they believed there was a problem. ISO 19011 (auditing QMSs) recommends not doing this. I'd suggest getting hold of a copy of the internal audit procedure that these people are supposed to be compliant to and seeing if it calls out ISO 19011 as good practice. They've contravened it in so many ways, including not verifying information, not sticking to an agreed sampling plan
6) a) NCs are normally linked to the risk of customers (internal or external) receiving non-conforming goods. Stock systems carry zero risk (OK, stuff might be out of stock and therefore late, but this is normally addressed with communications) and audit findings should reflect this. The scope of your process is carrying out tooling repairs, not managing elaborate stock systems.
b) An interesting thought occurs that - unless you run a very special toolroom - then you likely have a preponderance of grease, cutting fluids and other such substances, which might act as some mitigation against paperwork being filled in promptly. I've worked in chemical processing - in aerospace moreover - and it was absolutely understood by both auditors and employees that it is better to preserve the paperwork than splash nickel sulfate all over it.
7) Not covering the NCs with you before the end of the audit to ensure you understood them and agreed with their findings. Another ISO 19011 requirement.
8) Writing up minor stock issues against multiple clauses of ISO 9001. If you were really non-compliant to all those clauses then this should have been a major finding for a breakdown of system.
9) Drawing unwarranted assumptions in their NCs: "Ineffective communication between the tooling team and procurement team has led to
incomplete or missing records." How do they know this? It's your job to do the root-cause analysis, not theirs. This record could have been down to dozens of possible reasons, and if it's the one from 2022 then I guarantee they didn't try to find all the personnel who were working on it at the time. The NC should be a statement of evidential fact, not a half-assed root cause.
If anyone had tried to stick me with this audit report, I would have declined to accept it. And if they hadn't held a closing meeting in order for me to have the chance to decline it, then I would have complained directly to their superior(s).
