You did, but then you kept digging deeper into something that I don't think is broken or invalid. But regardless, thanks for going back and forth with me. It was a great opportunity to look at the whole process and definitely gave me fuel for the fire I'm about to light for the appeal.
Good and thanks! The reasons for 'going back and forth' are really how the audit should have played out - or somewhat like that. Clearly the nc lacked a deal of content to make it valid so it was my attempt to discover (remotely, of course) what the (true) situation is, bearing in mind we can't audit the MR etc. Often, auditors will 'smell' an nc and write it up and it will not be challenged (you're in shock, do want to argue etc). And that's the extent of the auditor's investigation.
However, in the cold light of such a discussion, it becomes clear(er) whether there's an underlying cause here - of the 'smell'. The auditor may have been onto something but didn't do the investigation.
It's a bit like a cop giving you a ticket - they don't care that you've never done that before, were distracted by personal events etc. etc. they just see the 'violation' and bamm! (ask Randy!)