After reading your entire post, I agree will Bill Pflanz's comment below. It still does not make the MR responsible and since there really isn't a requirement in ISO9001:2000 that requires everyone to know who the MR is, but I may agree that maybe there might be a NC regarding the CA not being updated, but that would be it, nothing to do with knowing who the MR is.
I agree with you Bill that the auditor maybe "fishing" for a NC
Coury,
I shall start with a few basics from my schooldays. the auditor's job is not to confirm conformance, nor to prove nonconformance. He is there to assess whether the system is defined and functioning properly, or failing. The method to be used by him is also well defined in his name itself.
Audi in latin (greek?) is related to "sound" (audio, audition..). An auditor is a person who listens. Not someone who grills people, lectures, sermonises, advises, thrusts his views. He is expected to make people speak and listens. Any problems he encounters, he is expected to judge whether they are one time human errors or system failures.
Any NC issued by an auditor is not valid if it is not accepted by the auditee. In our case, to issue an NC the auditor need not ask any further questions. If he is an NC hunter, he got his kill.
The feeler is to make an attempt to distinguish between a lapse and an NC. And then why not put it forthright? The auditor doesnt want to give clue of what exactly he wants to know.
Was I sermonising?
