All, with all due respect, I cannot follow the logic on this. I may be wrong on this one, and that's fine. But for now, I'm sticking with my guns.
Attached is a checklist I downloaded from the Internet. Plainly stated:
Safeguarded from adjustments that would invalidate the measurement results.
If this is an open system:
This organization has established training, standards, practices that the operators can verify their own instruments. If this is the case, I would not cite a problem
If this is a closed system:
If these instruments are calibrated by an independent lab, internal calibration lab, etc. and the instrument is to be controlled, then:
a. If there is a ready adjustment mechanism
and no system for verifying adjustment (tamper seals, wax, rings, etc.), then I would cite a problem.
b. If there is a ready adjustment mechanism
and a system for verifying adjustment (tamper seals, wax, rings, etc.), then I would not cite a problem.
I have been around too long to know, that if you have a screw, knob, adjustment of any kind that can be made, and means to do it; it will be adjusted. Humans are just too curious of creatures. If there are no guards against unauthorized adjustments, I feel the auditor's observation has merit.
However, I am merely speculating, as I have not seen the write-up, do not know if there is additional information the auditor observed, or any additional information which may weigh on this situation.
This is not an accusation effort; stating that because there is a wrench, someone adjusted. This is a process thing, stating that there is insufficient control over unauthorized adjustments.
Thank you for your patience. I generally don't hang on to a bone very long, but I just can't shake this one yet.
