What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action?

Nonconformity register with source, description and immediate correction; Root cause analysis records; Extent of condition check for similar nonconformities elsewhere; Corrective action records with an effectiveness review; Evidence of any resulting BCMS change.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 10.1?

Correction recorded as corrective action, with the cause never examined

ISO 22301:2019 · Improvement, ISO 22301:2019

`10.1` Nonconformity and corrective action

Determine opportunities for improvement and implement the actions needed to achieve the intended BCMS outcomes; when a nonconformity occurs, react to it and deal with its consequences, evaluate whether action is needed to eliminate the cause by reviewing the nonconformity, determining its causes and checking whether similar ones exist or could occur, implement whatever action is needed, review the effectiveness of the corrective action, and change the BCMS if necessary, with corrective action proportionate to the effects encountered and documented evidence retained of the nature of the nonconformities, the actions taken and the results.

Source: ISO 22301:2019, 10.1. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ISO 22301:2019 in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

Evidence of any resulting BCMS change · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Root cause analysis records · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Extent of condition check for similar nonconformities elsewhere · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Corrective action records with an effectiveness review · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Nonconformity register with source, description and immediate correction · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Policy repository / GRC workspace on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Correction recorded as corrective action, with the cause never examined
Root cause stated as human error, which stops the analysis rather than completing it
No extent of condition check, so the same failure recurs in a sister site
Effectiveness review missing, so recurrence is the only test the action ever gets
Action disproportionate to effect in either direction, over engineered or nominal

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

9.3.3 Management review outputs · 10.2 Continual improvement