Greetings, I was hoping to gain some insight into an issue I am having with an internal audit. We are a small manufacturing company. Usually each day's production run is assigned a unique lot number that follows it through inspection and packaging. We can trace specific boxes back to the inspector, operator and material heat lot. Now unique identifying lots are being abandoned in the warehouse. Come to find out, they are assigning generic lot numbers based on inventory locations. So if there are 20 boxes in an inventory location, all of those boxes are assigned the same lot number. This would include multiple days of production, which before would have contained 20 unique lot numbers. No lot number is being marked on the boxes. The only marking on the outputs are Part Number and Quantity From my understanding, the standard does not specify how deeply outputs need to be traceable, it seems to be left to the organizations discretion. Here are my questions: 1. We have multiple inspectors in QA. Without specific lot numbers, do we not lose traceability to the person authorizing the release of products and services per section 8.6? There is no way to know for sure who inspected and authorized any specific box of parts. 2. We lose traceability back to specific heat lot numbers for raw material. Especially if multiple bundles were consumed. Is that a requirement of the standard? This would also mean that we might lose the ability to evaluate our material suppliers. 3. Even if we are using generic lot numbers, shouldn't they still be applied to the boxes to conform to section 8.5.2? Does the part number suffice to identify the status of outputs and that they conform to product requirements? Isn't that what the lot number is for? 4. This seems to be a knee jerk decision by two members of upper management. I could find no evidence that this was a planned change or that anyone else was aware. I was looking at section 6.1.1 and I don think the risks of this change were considered. Certainly it is not addressed on our Risk Matrix. I think this change increases our risk. The needs and expectations of our customers were not considered. Lastly, I don't feel this change enhances customer satisfaction at all, in fact, I think it achieves the opposite. BUT, I couldn't find anything in the standard that says you cant make changes that increase risk. Is anything in here a non conformance? If upper management wants to make this change, there is nothing in the standard that states how detailed our traceability needs to be. I am not sure if there is anything here that needs to be addressed or if it is all in compliance. I want to be careful not to cloud my audit with my own biases and judgements. Personally I think this is a dumb move that weakens our QMS. Any input would be appreciated.