I really wish I could help you out. I'm borderline on FDA stuff. I don't know if this general dialogue will help or not - but maybe it will trigger some others to chime in.
The bottom line is for years quality systems have had a number of hallmarks. ISO 9001 is 'best practices' in a general way. The FDA, nuclear and military stuff are 'in addition'. What I mean is they typically contain all the hallmarks of a 'standard' quality system plus industry specific practices. The FDA has strict records control / retention features for example. Much stronger than ISO 9001's which let YOU decide what is important and what isn't.
So - you have the 'standard' hallmarks. What are they? basically ISO 9001:1994's 20 elements. Nonconformance system, corrective action system, document control. All these are pretty routine. Calibration - just good business and manufacuring practices. Internal auditing is a derivitive of nuclear mostly, I think[/]. ISO embraced it and it hangs there but I have never considered it a 'hallmark' but it must be said that customer audits have been going on for years. That said, customer audits are more typically product / process oriented.
As I understand it, cGMPs CFR 210 & 211 all are from federal or state regulatory bodies and they are mandatory, unlike ISO 9001 which is not a function of most governments to require, at least not across the board. That said, companies which sell certain items to many european companies are required by their country's government to be ISO registered or more. This is where the 'trade barrier' myth comes into play - as if the US doesn't require certain things of companies outside the US before they sell in the US. An example would be medicines. If a foreign company wants to sell drugs in th US there are one heck of a lot of hoops to jump through. Not to mention internally. Heck - look at all the companies that jumped through the QS-9000 hoop and all those about to dance the TS-16949 dance regardless of the expense.
So - if you see elements of ISO in the GMPs, just remember there are many 'hallmarks' of 'good' quality systems which go back many, many years. Sometimes they may not look like a 'traditional' but they function the same. For example, most companies do have some type of document control and it is typically at least somewhat effective even though not a documented system. That's what print control is all about, for example. If you're injection molding little 2 inch toy soldiers control of records is probably not a big item outside accounting. If you're making heart pacemakers you're going to have extensive trqaining, documentation, many records required by government agencies and such like.
ISO 9001:2000 is just over hyped good business practices.
I have never hear of Q7A so I can't comment there.