Receiving Verification process

[Renea Koski QAM]

Tell that QE to pound sand - nicely.
Also tell him that the new ISO requirement to assess climate change effects would dictate that you need to conserve paper and the energy to print it. So since there is NO prohibition for approving (not altering the information) the CofC directly on the CofC the approach is valid. Also by keeping to one piece of paper you will have a much better control of maintaining a record that it was reviewed and found to be acceptable.

Sad that thinking has gone out of favor and has been replaced by making stuff up that fits people’s agenda.

I would also add that maybe issuing a CAR was a tad heavy handed. Unless this person routinely does what they want despite the rules.

The CAR was issued because it was found in an IA. If I didn't issue a CAR, my auditor (notified body) would slap my wrist. Damned if I do and damned if I don't . . .I know, politics. . . smh

 

[Ed Panek]

Our receiving inspectors write down our lot # and qty on their CoC, which goes into the receiving paperwork folder. Why? If someone pulls that CoC and it gets lost on a desk, we immediately know where it belongs.

 

[John Predmore]

Hopefully, the CoC you receive is not the only copy in existence. In most quality systems, the author/source has the obligation to preserve manufacturing records. So adding notes, without fraudulent intent, without obscuring any original information or the original purpose, but identifying added notations with initials & date, for your record-keeping convenience, is not violating anyone's policy/regulations that I can imagine.