Defective emergency light - NC against 8.5.1

One unfortunate aspect of an information exchange like this one is that inherent limitations too often exist in supplying information realistically needed for a "It is/is not a valid NC" declaration. I additionally feel this constraint when addressing questions involving locations outside of the U.S., as, to be accurate, we would always need to start with the "What is required?" step and go from there.

During an audit, the site is asked to demonstrate conformance to requirements. That can happen in up to three ways:

1. Documented information, when an where required by relevant interested parties (both internal and external)
   
2. What auditees tell us (verbal information)
3. Physical observations

Ideally the auditor will be provides with at least two of these in order to verify effective demonstration of conformance to requirements. But I have not received any of them: Since I was not present, I saw none of the documentation, did not hear or speak in person with auditees, and did not observe the circumstances. Too many of my questions have not been answered, nor can they in this venue.

While I am not auditing now, I am being asked to take sides and my experience with dealing with data to assess things renders me unable to feel satisfied with what we have here. So I can't reach a conclusion. That is all.

As for AB pressure to report negative findings, I can only relate my own experiences to the contrary.

 

I am sorry but I cannot give a definite answer without more clarity in this case. I disagree that I am trying to wash my hands of it; if I feel I don't have enough data to provide a good answer, I will simply say so. Others can feel free to offer their views, and have exercised that freedom. It's fine but something about this scenario gives me the sense there is missing information. I am sorry to be so difficult.

 

OK. This topic has been beaten to death. The thread is now closed.