NADCAP is my auditor ooc?

Snappy title to get more opinions. In the middle of our NADCAP audit and I’d like some feedback before closing meeting on Friday. We are quite a large embedded metals testing lab, chems, mechs, metallography and I am responsible for one of the two chemical analysis labs.
We analyze C and S to ASTM E1019 and got a minor NCR for the following observation: acetone for rinsing samples was decanted from 5l bottle into a wash bottle. Big bottle had a label that showed it had residual solids <.0005wt% as required by the standard test method and a manufacturer’s batch number. Wash bottle should also be labeled with the details of the big bottle for traceability.

We disagree (1) we only have one grade of acetone and it purchased under a controlled PS from approved suppliers, (2) it’s used to wash off excess water from the cleaning process, it’s not part of the analysis, the spec requirement is set at such a level specifically in order that it doesn’t require consideration, (3) if such traceability was required a replaceable label on the bottle would not actually do that and delicate questioning revealed that auditor did not think it necessary to put these details on the original record for the test, (4) if we accept this finding the next step down the road to assign batch numbers to the tap water used to cool the samples during grinding which is IMO ridiculous.

also on another NCR where the observation amounted to us exceeding the standard (using more different certified reference materials than required) auditor said “if it looks like you are going to fail (too many NCRs) then I will forget about this one”

I disagree with the finding, but the statement after we argued back shows to me that the auditor is backtracking but trying to save face, which isn’t covered in the checklist

 

Thanks for your reply, not what I hoped to hear but practical at least. No point taking it to the PRI staff engineer? Do you think they will just back up the auditor?