Role · Quality & validation leadership
Quality owns the question of whether a deliverable was properly checked, and inherits it from disciplines that did the checking. standrdX makes the answer a lookup rather than an investigation.
The position
Discipline teams review properly. What they rarely produce is a record that survives contact with an auditor eighteen months later.
So quality carries an obligation it has no direct means of satisfying, and satisfies it by asking people.
Review quality is managed by whoever performs it. Review assurance belongs to someone who was not there.
The obligation sits with one role and the evidence sits with another.
The investigation
Nobody is withholding anything. The evidence exists, distributed across a mailbox, a spreadsheet, a transmittal and somebody's recollection.
Answering it today
Which assumes they are still with the business.
From memory, months after the fact.
A mailbox, a spreadsheet, a shared drive, a transmittal.
And hope it reconstructs to the same answer.
What changes
Nothing is compiled later. The clause and the reviewer are attached at the moment of the ruling, so the answer is retrieved rather than rebuilt.
Where teams start
Usually with the project that is closest to a customer or regulator review.
FAQ
Alongside it. The QMS holds a nonconformance once it has been raised; this is what brings it to light while the deliverable is still in review.
Settle that in a documentation review with your own team. Ask for the pack and you will get it in writing rather than as a claim.
Yes. Documents included in a run and those never included are both visible per project, which is the distinction a finding count alone hides.
The rejection is part of the record, with the reason given. A disagreement that was reasoned is stronger evidence than a clean sheet.
As far back as the reviews you run in it. It does not reconstruct history, which is the honest argument for starting on a live project rather than waiting.
Access is role-based and scoped per project. The role model is set out under Security & Governance.
Next step
Run it there. The gap between what you believe was checked and what can be shown is the thing worth measuring.