This really is a great discussion. We try to be careful to not put too much documentation and procedures on things while at the same time ensure systemic issues aren't created.
If someone forgets to turn off a light once I'm not going to define that as a non conformance and write it up. If someone forgets to turn a light off every day I'm going to call that a non conformance and go from there. For a smaller shop like us I feel like we can keep on top of this because we have the right supervisors in place who can watch for recurrence and be aware enough to then bump it up to a non conformance. Better hiring and promoting practices.
I won't say I have the perfect answer, but for the context of our organization I definitely won't define every mistake as an official non conformance.
The problem here, I think, lies in the phrase "official non conformance." First, the container is being confused with the thing contained. A nonconformity (or whatever you want to call it) exists whether or not it's documented. The map is not the territory and the nonconformity statement is not the nonconformity itself.
The second problem is that when you start allowing internal auditors--regardless of the size of the company--to make these types of judgments, the system is intrinsically undermined. Internal auditors should be unbiased observers, not problem-solvers. This is not to say that auditors can't or shouldn't be involved in problem solving
after the audit. During the audit, auditors should
always record and report what they see, and then let a higher authority determine the correct course of action.
Sometimes documented requirements are unintentionally too restrictive. If that's the case, it's a simple thing to review the requirements and determine if they need to be reworded or even eliminated. This is also something that should come out of an internal audit. People need to stop being so concerned about what things are called, stop painting themselves into corners, and let the internal audit system do its job.