Audit Execution, Interviewing, and Objective Evidence
Running the audit
Open with a meeting that confirms objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, and reporting method. Then work the plan: collect evidence, keep notes, hold short team huddles, and adjust the plan when a lead emerges. Close with a meeting that presents findings, agrees factual accuracy, and sets reporting timelines.
The evidence triad
Evidence comes from three converging sources: interviews, observation of activities, and review of documents and records. Triangulating them is what makes a finding defensible. Objective evidence is data supporting the existence or truth of something - a controlled procedure, a completed record, a product on the line. Hearsay, opinion, and “we always do it that way” are not evidence. Records differ from documents: a document states what should happen, a record shows what did happen.
Interviewing
Start with open questions (“walk me through what happens when a complaint arrives”), narrow with closed questions to confirm detail, and listen more than you speak. Avoid leading questions that supply the answer. Verify that the person actually performs the task; ask to see it happen. When you find one nonconformity, widen the sample to test whether it is isolated or systemic - that judgement later decides major versus minor.
Traps
- Accepting verbal assurance in place of a record or observation.
- Being drawn into advising the auditee; that is consultancy, not auditing.
- Recording a “feeling” instead of traceable evidence.
- Sampling only one shift, line, or department and generalising.
Rule of thumb
A finding is ready when a second auditor could pick up your notes, find the same records and people, and reach the same conclusion without you in the room.