Is "robust" a requirement?

Has anyone seen the use of the word "robust" in a non-conformity statement? I can't find the word in the standard. How, therefore can it be used in reporting non-conformity?

 

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of 'robust' is:

"1a: having or exhibiting strength or vigorous health
b: having or showing vigor, strength, or firmnessa (e.g., robust debate; a robust faith)
c: strongly formed or constructed : STURDYa (e.g., robust plastic)
d: capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions (e.g., robust software)"

Not disagreeing with the fact that it is not in the standard and I do dislike the use of adjectives in a finding as these are a personal perspective, but could this be a way of trying to proactively indicate that the process with the alleged nonconformity is not stable? Before you go down the pathway of replying that it is not the role of the auditor to offer "degree of conformity" in their findings - because at a fundamental level I agree with this approach - I also agree that findings such as this can offer more value to an organization.

I would rather see this type of finding coming from an internal auditor than an external one. When it comes from an internal source, it can encourage a discussion internally and I'd rather such discussions were hammered out before an external auditor came on-site. These types of discussions can not only open the door to creating more robust systems, but can also help to get everyone on the same page when it comes to supporting their management system.