Last Updated on December 22, 2025 by Melissa Lazaro

Handling ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Findings the Right Way

If you’ve just received an ISO/IEC 17043 audit report, your first reaction might be relief that the audit is over.

Then comes the corrective actions.

In my experience, this is where many PT providers struggle—not because the findings are impossible to fix, but because they rush the response.

I’ve reviewed corrective action submissions that were technically correct, well-written, and still rejected. Why? Because they didn’t address the real problem.

This article walks you through how to handle ISO/IEC 17043 corrective actions properly—from understanding the finding to proving the issue won’t come back.

Understand ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Findings Before Defining Corrective Actions

Before you write a single corrective action, stop and read the finding carefully.

This step sounds obvious, but it’s often skipped.

Audit findings usually fall into three categories:

• Major non-conformities – serious system or technical failures
• Minor non-conformities – isolated or low-risk gaps
• Observations – warnings that can become findings later

Here’s what I’ve noticed.

Providers often jump straight to fixing documents without confirming what the auditor was actually concerned about.

Pro tip:
If a finding feels unclear, ask for clarification early. Accreditation bodies expect this.

Common mistake:
Treating every finding the same and applying generic fixes.

Perform a Proper Root-Cause Analysis for ISO/IEC 17043 Findings

Corrective actions live or die by the root-cause analysis.

Auditors don’t want to know what went wrong.
They want to know why it was allowed to go wrong.

Common weak root causes sound like:

• “Staff not trained”
• “Procedure not followed”
• “Human error”

Those aren’t root causes. They’re symptoms.

In ISO/IEC 17043 audits, real root causes often relate to:

• Unclear responsibilities
• Weak controls in PT scheme design
• Poor review and verification steps
• Gaps between procedures and practice

Pro tip:
Ask “why” until the answer points to a system weakness, not a person.

Common mistake:
Blaming individuals instead of fixing the process that allowed the issue.

Define Effective ISO/IEC 17043 Corrective Actions That Auditors Accept

Once the root cause is clear, corrective actions become much easier.

Effective corrective actions:

• Directly address the root cause
• Prevent recurrence
• Are specific, measurable, and realistic

Auditors look closely at wording here.

Statements like “procedure updated” or “staff reminded” rarely pass on their own.

Instead, show:

• What changed
• Who is responsible
• How the change is controlled

Pro tip:
Write corrective actions as if the auditor won’t see your system again for a year. Make the logic clear on paper.

Common mistake:
Using vague actions that sound good but don’t prove control.

Implement Corrective Actions Across PT Schemes and Processes

One risky habit I see often is fixing only the audited example.

For ISO/IEC 17043, that’s rarely enough.

If a finding affects:

• PT scheme design
• Statistical evaluation
• Competence requirements

…then the corrective action usually applies to more than one scheme.

Auditors notice quickly when corrective actions are isolated instead of systemic.

Pro tip:
Ask yourself, “Where else could this problem exist?” and check those areas too.

Common mistake:
Closing findings without checking similar PT schemes or processes.

Verify the Effectiveness of ISO/IEC 17043 Corrective Actions

This is the step most often underestimated.

Corrective actions aren’t complete until effectiveness is verified.

Acceptable effectiveness checks include:

• Follow-up internal audits
• Review of updated PT scheme results
• Trend analysis over time
• Management review discussions

In my experience, effectiveness evidence is what separates accepted corrective actions from rejected ones.

Pro tip:
Show evidence that the issue didn’t just disappear—it’s now controlled.

Common mistake:
Closing corrective actions immediately after implementation.

Prevent Repeat ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Findings

Repeat findings are where audits become uncomfortable.

Auditors pay close attention to:

• Findings that reappear
• Similar issues across different clauses
• Corrective actions that didn’t change outcomes

This is important because repeat non-conformities raise questions about system effectiveness.

Strong PT providers use corrective actions as learning tools, not just responses.

Pro tip:
Track findings and corrective actions over time. Trends tell a powerful story during audits.

Common mistake:
Treating corrective actions as one-off tasks instead of system improvements.

FAQs – ISO/IEC 17043 Corrective Actions for Audit Findings

How long do we have to close ISO/IEC 17043 audit findings?
Timelines vary by accreditation body, but responses are typically expected within 30–60 days.

What if our corrective actions are rejected?
You’ll usually be asked to revise them. Rejections often point to weak root-cause analysis or unclear effectiveness evidence.

Do all corrective actions require effectiveness verification?
Yes. The level of verification may vary, but auditors expect evidence that actions worked.

Conclusion – Closing ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Findings with Confidence

ISO/IEC 17043 corrective actions don’t need to be complicated—but they do need to be thoughtful.

When PT providers:

• Understand findings clearly
• Address real root causes
• Implement system-level improvements
• Verify effectiveness properly

…audit outcomes improve quickly and stay improved.

I’ve seen providers turn difficult audit reports into strong surveillance results simply by changing how they approach corrective actions.

Your next step:
Use these ISO/IEC 17043 corrective-action principles to respond calmly, clearly, and confidently—and reduce the risk of repeat findings in your next audit.