AI System for Drafting Quality Nonconformance Reports

The problem

When inspection results, photographs, lot records and operator notes are held in separate sources, their fields must be matched by hand before an evidence-linked report draft can be prepared.

The quality manager must compare every suggestion in the evidence-linked report draft with its source record; missing or conflicting evidence must not replace the final decision.

If the relationship between the same symptom and several lots is not set aside for review, a root cause could be recorded without evidence; the record must not proceed without a human decision.

What we set out to improve

• Time taken for an evidence-linked report draft and its supporting evidence to reach the quality manager for review
• How records set aside for human review because the same symptom relates to several lots are resolved
• Number of suggestions corrected after identifying a risk that a root cause could be recorded without evidence

How the system works

1. 01 Retrieve inspection results, photographs, lot records and operator notes from permitted sources using the record identifier
2. 02 Link source, date and version information to the shared work record
3. 03 Validate fields and units
4. 04 Prepare the evidence-linked report draft with its supporting evidence
5. 05 Check for an exception: the same symptom relates to several lots
6. 06 Have the quality manager accept, revise or reject the suggestion
7. 07 Record the approved decision and its source in the processing log

Methods we used

• A source-identified common data schema for inspection results, photographs, lot records and operator notes
• A decision structure that separates deterministic rules from AI suggestions
• A review screen showing the evidence-linked report draft alongside the underlying source evidence
• A mandatory human review queue when the same symptom relates to several lots
• An event identifier that prevents duplicate processing

Where people stay involved

Data and security

Only the fields required for this decision should be processed from inspection results, photographs, lot records and operator notes. Access to the source systems must be authorised separately from the quality manager role, and personal data, commercial information and technical secrets must not be passed into the model context unnecessarily. Reading, suggestions and human decisions must be logged separately.

Who this suits

Frequently asked questions