Application scope for Clause 8.6.4 and 8.6.5

Hi guys. There is another question I want to discuss with you.
I am studying my company quality manual these days. (My company provides the LED Chips as the light source of the rear and interior lamps for cars) In the quality manual, my company`s system lady uses a Process VS. IATF 16949 requirement clause matching table to show that each individual process conforms to which clause of the IATF requirements.
Regarding the clause 8.6.4 Verification and acceptance of conformity of externally provided products and services and 8.6.5 Statutory and regulatory conformity, the table shows only outsourcing process(defined as one of the support processes) conforms to these two clauses. I have read the content of these two clauses, the object of these two clauses is "externally provided processes, products, and services". If so, I think the supplier related process, such as incoming inspection, should also conform to these two clauses. However in the matching table, incoming inspection which is considered as a sub-process of the support process, Inspection/Experiment management process, does not necessarily conform to these two clauses. In fact, the outsourcing process is the only process which need to conform to these two.
So I`d like to ask guys` opinions on this matter. Should incoming inspection process also necessarily conform to these two clauses?

PS: I am not a native English speaker. So if there is something strange with my words which you guys can`t understand, please tell me.

 

I think they have done it backwards. What we did was cross reference each clause and identify what process addresses it. So, yes 8.6.4 would primarily be handled by incoming inspection. 8.6.5 could be addressed in several areas.

 

Did you ask "system lady" about logic used to build this matrix?

 

Oh, yes, I should have used "address" instead of "conform to". We identify the process which addresses the clause rather than we determine which process conforms to which clause.

 

I wanted to ask her about it. However this is her job, and she has been working as a quality system engineer for a long time. I can't stick my nose into it. She maybe feels offended. Nevertheless, we just survived the IATF16949 transfer audit with only one minor nonconformance. A little surprise.

 

I would be happy to have in my team people who would ask me, why I did matrix this way.
For me, there is not only one logic of this matrix.
For example some people could reject matrix with relation 1 clause = 1 process, so two processes are not addressing one clause.
I would accept it, but everything depends on how processes are defined.

 

As you put it in this way, it may be a good idea to ask her directly.
In my company's case, each defined process addresses several clauses, half a dozen at least. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 6.1 are addressed by each defined process. If there was no information control policy, I would like to show it to you. The sad fact is it is the corporate intellectual property. I have no right to share, even for a discussion purpose.
Recently I have read a lot about qualtiy system, about how to built one, how to build all the related quality documentation and manage the system. It is really amazing to see how all the processes can interact and connect with each other in a elegant manner. COPs is connected to each other with the support from the corresponding SPs.So there come the interfaces between the COP and SP. However when I read my company's documents, I haven't found this beauty yet. I may just keep searching.