What this is
What is a finding?
What is a finding?
A finding is a record of a single deficiency observed during an audit, inspection or check: what was found, what it falls short of, how severe it is, and who owns fixing it. It is the general-purpose finding record referenced from many other templates rather than a workflow of its own.
Who raises a finding?
Whoever is carrying out the check at the moment an item fails. The record is meant to be created on the spot, against the parent audit, inspection or check that surfaced it, not reconstructed afterwards from memory or a report.
How does a finding differ from an audit finding record?
A finding is the generic version: any check, any parent type, a simple grade and severity. A formal management-system audit under ISO 45001, ISO 9001 or a similar scheme needs the audit-specific version, with auditee agreement on the grade and a systemic-versus-isolated extent judgement, which this generic record does not carry.
Scope
When is a finding required?
This record exists to be attached to something else. Used on its own, without a parent, it produces an orphaned deficiency nobody can trace back to the check that found it.
Use this template when
- An audit, inspection, checklist or other check has just failed an item and the deficiency needs to be captured before the check moves on
- A near miss, incident, complaint or management-of-change review has surfaced a deficiency that needs its own record and its own owner
- The deficiency needs to be graded, assigned and tracked through to a corrective action separately from the parent record's own narrative
- A workspace needs a single, consistent finding format so deficiencies from different kinds of checks can be reported on together
- The finding will feed a corrective and preventive action record and needs its own ID to link against
Do not use it for
- Audit Finding Record (CMP-004), when the deficiency comes from a formal management-system audit needing major, minor or observation grading with auditee agreement and a systemic-versus-isolated judgement
- Root Cause Analysis, once the finding is graded and assigned; the finding records what was seen, not why it happened
- Corrective and Preventive Action, for the fix itself; the finding links to the CAPA record rather than containing the action plan
- Recording an opinion about a person rather than a fact about the work; the help text on the description field exists for that reason
- Standalone use with no Parent Type or Parent ID set; a finding with nothing to trace back to cannot be reported on with the check that raised it
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 19011 cl.6.4 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 19011 cl.6.4 covers how audit information is collected, verified and turned into individual findings during the audit itself. This record exists to hold that output in a consistent shape regardless of which check produced it.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 19011 cl.6.4 | Audit evidence collected and verified against the applicable criteria, traceable to its source | Header |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Individual findings generated from the evidence, described factually and evaluated against criteria | Finding detail |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Findings reviewed and classified where the audit programme calls for a graded response | Classification |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.4 | Findings communicated to those responsible so a response can be planned | Assignment |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.6 | Follow-up conducted to verify that agreed correction was carried out | Closure |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Findings retained as documented evidence, available for review across cycles | Finding detail |
What it does not cover
- Audit Finding Record (CMP-004), which is needed once a formal certification audit requires auditee-agreed grading and a systemic-versus-isolated judgement.
- Root Cause Analysis, which establishes why the deficiency exists rather than recording that it exists.
- Corrective and Preventive Action, which plans and tracks the fix; the finding links to it rather than replacing it.
- Effectiveness Verification, which confirms the fix actually worked, beyond the closure signature on this record.
- The parent audit, inspection or checklist record, which holds the overall result; the finding only ever holds one deficiency within it.
Global
Finding requirements by country
There is no jurisdiction-specific law behind a generic finding record. What varies is how much documentation regulators and certification bodies expect once a deficiency is identified during a check.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; standard-specific recordkeeping
No general requirement to log every check finding, but recognised hazards left unaddressed after being found carry their own exposure.
An unresolved finding with no owner or closure date is difficult to distinguish, after the fact, from a hazard that was recognised and ignored.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
No standard finding format is prescribed, but significant findings from any assessment must be recorded where five or more are employed.
A finding raised from a risk assessment or inspection can serve as part of that recorded evidence, provided it is traceable to its parent.
ISO 19011
Method for generating, evaluating and following up audit findings, referenced by certification bodies auditing against ISO management system standards.
Certification auditors look for a consistent finding format applied across the management system, not for this specific document by name.
How to complete it
How to complete a finding, step by step
The fields most finding records get right are grade and description. The ones that determine whether the record is usable later are the linkage fields, which are easy to leave blank because nothing stops the record being saved without them.
A finding with no parent is a deficiency nobody can trace back to the check that found it. Setting the parent first, before writing the description, keeps the record honest about where it came from and lets it be reported on alongside every other finding from the same audit or inspection.
The description field exists to record a fact about the work: a guard missing, a permit expired, a control not followed. Naming the person present when it was found turns a quality record into something closer to a disciplinary note, and it is the specific instruction on the field for a reason.
Immediate Risk is not a restatement of the grade. A minor finding can still mean someone is at risk right now if the failure is live, and a major finding about a paperwork gap may carry no immediate risk at all. Answer it against the situation in front of you, and record what was done on the spot regardless of the answer.
The closure signature is specified as belonging to whoever verified the fix, not the person who carried it out. A finding signed off by its own owner has confirmed that the work was done, not that it was checked, and the two are not the same claim.
What auditors find
Most common finding findings
Because this record is reused across so many parent templates, its most common problems are about linkage and discipline rather than about the description itself, which is usually written well enough.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Parent Type or Parent ID left blank, so the finding cannot be traced to the audit or inspection that raised it. | ISO 19011 cl.6.4 | Require Parent Type and Parent ID before the description field can be completed. |
| Finding Description names an individual rather than describing the deficiency. | ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Rewrite to describe what was found and against what requirement; move any conduct concern to the appropriate process. |
| Finding Grade and Severity completed inconsistently, or one left blank while the other is answered. | ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Require both fields, and calibrate assessors on the difference between the two scales with worked examples. |
| CAPA Raised ticked with no CAPA ID, or a CAPA ID entered without the checkbox ticked. | ISO 19011 cl.6.4 | Validate the two fields together so an orphaned link cannot be saved either way. |
| Repeat Finding left unticked despite the same Element Tag appearing, unresolved, in a previous cycle. | ISO 19011 cl.6.4.9 | Check open findings with the same tag and site before closing the record; escalate genuine repeats rather than reissuing the same grade. |
| Closure Signature completed by the same user recorded as the owner who closed it. | ISO 19011 cl.6.6 | Restrict the closure signature to a user other than the assigned owner, consistent with the field's own help text. |
Case in point
Case in point: the finding that went nowhere
A housekeeping inspection raised a finding for blocked emergency egress in a warehouse aisle, graded Minor with no immediate risk recorded. The finder saved the record without setting Parent Type or Parent ID, because the inspection tool moved on to the next question before asking for them.
Three months later the same aisle was flagged again during a different inspection, this time by a different person who had no way of knowing a finding already existed. Both records sat open with no CAPA raised, because neither finder had reason to search a library of findings with no parent reference to search by, and the repeat went unrecognised until a site walk turned up both.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- FDN-015
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- FND-2026-000
- Scoring
- Severity band
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 19011 cl.6.4
- Links
- Feeds CAPA
- Tags
- Finding
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 28
- Follow up fields
- 0
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
6 fieldsFinding ID*
Format FND-2026-00000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Case ID
Thread key
Parent Type*
Audit, inspection, checklist or external audit.
Parent ID*
Links to The audit or inspection that raised this
Found Date*
Found By*
Finding detail
6 fieldsFinding Description*
What was found, factually. Avoid naming individuals.
Requirement Not Met*
The rule, standard or procedure this falls short of.
Clause Reference
Clause ID
Links to FDN-009 Clause ID
Photo Evidence
Location
Classification
6 fieldsFinding Grade*
Major, minor or observation. A major finding blocks certification.
- Critical0 pts
- Major1 pt
- Minor2 pts
- Observation3 pts
Severity*
- Minor3 pts
- Moderate1 pt
- Serious0 pts
Immediate Risk*
Whether anyone is at risk right now.
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Immediate Action Taken
What was done on the spot before leaving the area.
Element Tag*
Groups findings by hazard type for Pareto analysis.
Repeat Finding*
Tick if this was found in a previous audit. Repeat findings escalate.
Assignment
6 fieldsSite*
Site ID*
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Assigned To*
Response Due Date*
CAPA Raised*
CAPA ID
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Closure
4 fieldsFinding Status*
- Open0 pts
- In progress1 pt
- Closed2 pts
Closure Date
Closure Evidence
Closure Signature
Signed by whoever verified the finding is closed, not by the owner who closed it.
FDN-015 · record IDs look like FND-2026-000 · Feeds CAPA
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
A record this widely reused lives or dies on linkage. The work that slips is not writing the finding, it is keeping it connected to the check that raised it and the action that closes it.
Watches for findings saved without a Parent Type or Parent ID, and for CAPA Raised and CAPA ID that disagree, before either reaches a report.
Matches new findings against open ones sharing a site and element tag, and flags likely repeats before Repeat Finding is answered.
Rolls findings from every parent type into one register, so certification readiness and general deficiency tracking read from the same source.
This template lives in General — control tower. The orchestration layer. Registries and engines every other workspace reads from.
Meet General→Glossary
Finding definitions and key terms
- Finding
- A record of one deficiency observed during a check, described factually, graded, and linked to whatever raised it and whatever closes it.
- Parent Type
- The kind of record that raised the finding: an audit, inspection, incident, near miss, risk assessment or similar, which makes the record generic rather than tied to one workflow.
- Grade
- The classification of the finding's severity, distinct from whether it carries an immediate risk right now.
- Repeat finding
- A finding matching one already raised, unresolved, in an earlier cycle, which signals that a prior closure was cosmetic rather than effective.
- CAPA
- Corrective and Preventive Action: the linked record that plans and tracks the fix a finding calls for, referenced by ID rather than duplicated.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about finding
Can any template raise a finding?+
Any template whose parent type appears in the Parent Type list can, which covers incidents, near misses, audits, inspections, risk assessments, complaints, equipment failures, nonconformances and management-of-change reviews. That breadth is the point: one finding format across all of them.
Why are Grade and Severity separate fields?+
Grade classifies the finding on a scheme running Critical to Observation. Severity is a narrower band. Keeping them separate lets a workspace use whichever scale its reporting relies on, or both, without one masking the other.
When should we use the audit-specific finding record instead?+
When the finding comes from a formal, certifiable management-system audit that needs the grade agreed with the auditee and a judgement on whether the issue is isolated or systemic. This generic record does not carry either of those fields.
Does a finding have to result in a CAPA?+
No. The CAPA Raised checkbox exists because not every finding needs a corrective action; some are closed with an immediate fix and no further tracking. What matters is that the checkbox and CAPA ID agree with each other.
Who should sign off closure?+
Whoever verified that the fix was actually done, which the field's own help text specifies as not the owner who carried the fix out. A closure signed by the owner confirms completion, not verification.
What happens if Parent Type is left blank?+
The finding becomes an orphaned record: a deficiency with no traceable source. It can still be graded and assigned, but it cannot be reported on alongside the check that actually raised it, and duplicate findings become much harder to recognise.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Incident and Investigation
A single case thread from the event to a verified corrective action, with regulatory reporting handled.
Internal Audit and Certification
Findings closed on root cause rather than on correction, and readiness held every day.
Master Data and Foundations
One place for each thing, so a change updates everywhere rather than in eight lists.
Workplace Inspection
Findings graded and owned, with repeat findings visible across rounds.
Used together in Incident and Investigation
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Corrective and Preventive Action
The single action record used everywhere
Effectiveness Verification
Checks whether an action actually worked, some time after it was put in place
Just Culture Determination
Separates a system problem from a genuine choice to take a risk, using a consistent set of questions
Extent of Condition Review
Asks two questions after an investigation: where else does this same condition exist, and where else could this same cause bite us
Witness Statement
Captures what one person saw, heard or did, in their own words
More in Engines
Risk Assessment
The single risk assessment used across the whole business
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Corrective and Preventive Action
The single action record used everywhere
Effectiveness Verification
Checks whether an action actually worked, some time after it was put in place
Just Culture Determination
Separates a system problem from a genuine choice to take a risk, using a consistent set of questions
Extent of Condition Review
Asks two questions after an investigation: where else does this same condition exist, and where else could this same cause bite us
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 19011:2018 clause 6.4, Conducting the audit
- ISO 19011:2018 clause 6.6, Conducting audit follow-up
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (GB)
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.