Last Updated on December 22, 2025 by Melissa Lazaro

Why ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Non-Conformities Keep Repeating

If you’ve ever reviewed accreditation audit reports from different PT providers, you’ll notice something interesting.

The findings are often very similar.

In my experience, ISO/IEC 17043 non-conformities rarely come from a lack of effort. They come from misunderstanding what auditors actually expect and where the real risks sit in a PT operation.

I’ve supported PT providers before audits, during audits, and after findings were issued. And most non-conformities fall into a few predictable categories.

This article breaks down the top ISO/IEC 17043 audit non-conformities, explains why they happen, and shows you how to spot them early—before an auditor does.

Impartiality and Confidentiality Non-Conformities (Clause 4)

Clause 4 findings are more common than many providers expect.

Auditors don’t just check whether you have an impartiality policy. They check whether it’s alive.

Typical non-conformities include:

• Impartiality risks identified once and never reviewed again
• No evidence that risks are monitored or mitigated
• Confidentiality commitments that aren’t consistently applied

I’ve seen providers surprised by these findings because “nothing has gone wrong.”
But auditors don’t wait for problems. They assess risk control.

Pro tip:
If impartiality risks haven’t been discussed since the last audit, that’s already a finding waiting to happen.

Common mistake:
Treating impartiality as a document instead of a management process.

Structural and Responsibility Gaps (Clause 5)

Clause 5 looks simple on paper. In practice, it causes real trouble.

Auditors frequently raise non-conformities when:

• Roles and responsibilities aren’t clearly defined
• Decision-making authority isn’t obvious
• PT scheme responsibilities overlap or conflict

One provider I worked with had a clean org chart. But during interviews, three people described the same role differently. That alone triggered a finding.

This matters because auditors need confidence that technical decisions are controlled and accountable.

Pro tip:
Make sure your structure reflects how work is actually done, not how it looks in a manual.

Common mistake:
Copying organizational structures from other standards without adapting them to PT activities.

Personnel and Competence Non-Conformities (Clause 6)

Competence findings are rarely about qualifications alone.

Auditors often identify non-conformities such as:

• No defined competence criteria for PT scheme coordinators
• Training records that don’t link to PT responsibilities
• Assumptions that experience automatically equals competence

Here’s what auditors really want to know:
Is this person competent to manage this specific PT scheme?

General experience isn’t enough without evidence.

Pro tip:
Link competence directly to scheme tasks—design, data analysis, reporting, and review.

Common mistake:
Relying on CVs instead of demonstrating ongoing competence evaluation.

PT Scheme Design and Statistical Evaluation Non-Conformities (Clause 7)

This is where most major non-conformities appear.

Clause 7 is the technical heart of ISO/IEC 17043, and auditors spend serious time here.

Common findings include:

• Weak justification for assigned values
• Inconsistent performance criteria
• Incomplete homogeneity or stability studies
• Statistical methods used without documented rationale

I’ve seen providers say, “This is standard practice,” and assume that’s enough. It isn’t.

Auditors expect you to explain why your approach is suitable for your scheme.

Pro tip:
If you can’t explain your statistical decisions in plain language, that’s a risk.

Common mistake:
Trusting software outputs without documenting the logic behind them.

Management System and Internal Audit Non-Conformities (Clause 8)

Clause 8 findings usually signal deeper issues.

Auditors commonly raise non-conformities when:

• Internal audits don’t cover all ISO/IEC 17043 requirements
• Corrective actions don’t address root causes
• Management reviews repeat the same discussion every year

One red flag auditors notice quickly is repeated issues with no improvement trend.

This is important because Clause 8 ties everything together. Weak system controls amplify technical risks.

Pro tip:
Use internal audits to challenge your system, not confirm it.

Common mistake:
Closing corrective actions without verifying effectiveness.

Repeated ISO/IEC 17043 Non-Conformities and Escalation Risks

A single non-conformity is manageable.

Repeated non-conformities are not.

Auditors become concerned when:

• The same issues appear across multiple audits
• Corrective actions address symptoms, not causes
• Management doesn’t recognize trends

I’ve seen minor findings escalate simply because nothing changed between audits.

Pro tip:
Track findings over time. Trends tell auditors more than individual issues.

Common mistake:
Treating each audit finding as a one-off event.

FAQs – ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Non-Conformities

What is the most common ISO/IEC 17043 audit non-conformity?
Clause 7 issues—especially around statistical justification and scheme design—appear most frequently.

Are minor non-conformities serious?
They can be if repeated. Auditors look at patterns, not just severity labels.

Can ISO/IEC 17043 non-conformities lead to suspension?
Yes, especially if major or recurring issues aren’t effectively addressed.

Conclusion – Reducing ISO/IEC 17043 Audit Non-Conformities Before They Happen

Most ISO/IEC 17043 audit non-conformities are predictable.

They usually come from:

• Weak risk management
• Unclear competence evidence
• Poorly used internal audits
• Gaps between procedures and practice

When PT providers address these areas honestly, audit outcomes improve fast.

I’ve seen organizations go from stressful audits to confident discussions—not by adding more documents, but by strengthening understanding and control.

Your next step:
Use these common ISO/IEC 17043 audit non-conformities as a self-check. Fix what’s weak now, and your next audit becomes much easier.