Audit Follow Up Record

This review looks backward at findings from a specific audit that already happened. Using it to raise or close a single finding, rather than to check a batch of them, produces a review that duplicates work the finding record and CAPA process already do.

ISO 19011 cl.6.7 covers conducting the follow up: confirming that corrective actions were taken, checking they were effective, and reporting the residual risk if they were not.

ISO 19011 cl.6.7 is guidance rather than a certifiable requirement on its own, but the certifiable standards behind most audits, and the customers who rely on them, treat follow-through as the part that actually gets tested.

The fields are simple to fill in. What decides whether the record is defensible is the judgement behind four specific answers.

These are the patterns that actually surface when follow up records are reviewed across a cycle, not theoretical gaps in the form.

An internal audit raised a Major finding against permit-to-work practice at a manufacturing site. The corrective action plan proposed retraining supervisors, Evidence Provided was marked Yes once the training register was filed, and the finding was marked Closed within three weeks — well inside target. Verified On Site was left as Record only.

The next scheduled audit, eight months later, raised what looked like a new finding against the same process. Only when the two records were compared did it become clear this was a repeat of the same root cause: training had been delivered, but nothing about the process had changed, so the lapse recurred under a new supervisor. Repeat Findings Since was never incremented, because the follow up had treated the first finding as fully closed rather than closed on a weak action.

The form is the easy part. Chasing overdue findings before the next audit, telling a genuine process fix from a reissued memo, and getting a real answer on Verified On Site is the work that actually slips.

KnowComply

Holds the follow up record against the original audit and its findings, tracks Closure Percent and Repeat Findings Since across cycles, and flags a site stuck at Record only.

KnowMaintain

Links Action Strength answers of Eliminate or engineer to the actual work order that changed the equipment, so a follow up record can't claim a fix that was never scheduled.

KnowSafe

Surfaces Critical Or Major Still Open findings against live risk assessments, so a hazard-related finding doesn't sit closed on paper while the underlying risk is unchanged.

Ella

Chases Days Overdue and Next Follow Up Due before they lapse, rolls escalation and repeat-finding patterns into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.

Closure percent

The proportion of findings from a given audit that have reached Closed status by the time the follow up is carried out, used here as the template's primary score, where high is good.

Action strength

A ranking of how durable a corrective action is likely to be, from weakest (a reminder or reissued instruction) to strongest (eliminating or engineering out the cause), independent of whether the action was completed on time.

Effectiveness verification

Confirming a corrective action not only happened but actually prevented the original problem recurring — the distinction between Evidence Provided and Verified On Site here.

Repeat finding

A nonconformity that reappears in a later audit against the same root cause as one already closed, usually signalling that the original corrective action addressed the symptom rather than the cause.

Second-party audit

An audit carried out by, or for, a customer rather than an internal team or accredited certification body — the audience most likely to request this record directly.