Re: Internal Auditor lack of Competence.
At the risk of piling on, I think this needs to be addressed further. What you describe as an imperative in the defining the purpose of internal audits is not imperative. We pay CB auditors to verify compliance with QMS requirements, so it only makes sense for internal audits to go beyond that. What you're describing sounds not like "inspection" but more like a search-and-destroy mission intended to provide "Gotcha!" opportunities. This might not have been your intent, but that's the way it reads.
A well-designed QMS takes the requirements of the standard into account (compliance is implicit in process design) and should allow internal auditors to (a) verify process requirements and (b) use their knowledge, experience and skills to help make things better. It's difficult, if not impossible, to make internal auditing effective so long as auditors are perceived as being obsessed with lockstep compliance and looking for trouble.
Alright. Lets get away from this new flavor of the day "adding value". If we are discussing INTERNAL AUDITS, then it is my opinion an internal audit should err on the side of an inspection. If an internal auditor can add value by OFI's, so be it; however, that is not the focus of an internal audit. The focus of an internal audit is compliance to the management system the organization put in place.
Who would you rather find the nit picking stuff. Your internal auditor or your thrid party auditor? When I perform internal audits, I put on my inspector hat and look at everything possible in the time allowed. When I perform a third party auditor, I put on my "sampling" hat as there is not enough time to look at everything. Third party is were we discuss process improvements (i.e. add value); however, I assure you, no matter which role I take, Murphy's law IS ON MY SIDE.
Who would you rather find the nit picking stuff. Your internal auditor or your thrid party auditor? When I perform internal audits, I put on my inspector hat and look at everything possible in the time allowed. When I perform a third party auditor, I put on my "sampling" hat as there is not enough time to look at everything. Third party is were we discuss process improvements (i.e. add value); however, I assure you, no matter which role I take, Murphy's law IS ON MY SIDE.
A well-designed QMS takes the requirements of the standard into account (compliance is implicit in process design) and should allow internal auditors to (a) verify process requirements and (b) use their knowledge, experience and skills to help make things better. It's difficult, if not impossible, to make internal auditing effective so long as auditors are perceived as being obsessed with lockstep compliance and looking for trouble.

Internal Audit especially; is not Inspection; not even in its widest term of "Appraisal".
.
but am always willing to learn from my peers.