The Interviews That Could Not Have Happened
Two days before the certification decision meeting, you are reviewing the working papers of a three-person ISO 9001 audit team you led at a logistics company. One auditor, a colleague you have mentored for three years, submitted interview records showing 14 interviews between 09:00 and 12:00 at the main warehouse, plus 3 interviews at a satellite depot 40 km away at 11:30 and 11:45. His timesheet claims 11 hours for the audit day; the audit plan allocated 8. He has initialled the sampling sheet for 60 consignment records, but only 12 record numbers appear in his notes, and those 12 are the same three consignments repeated. You texted him for clarification and he replied 'all fine, trust me, I was there'. The draft report already shows no findings in his area. He was promoted last month and has a young family.
1. What should you do before the report is issued?
Read the worked answer
Stop the report. You cannot sign off an audit whose records you do not believe.
- Check what is checkable without confrontation: access-control logs, gate records, the client's visitor log, the satellite depot's signing-in sheet, system timestamps. A person cannot be at two locations 40 km apart within 15 minutes, so the logs will settle it.
- Speak to him formally, not by text. State what you have found and give him a genuine chance to explain - the depot interviews could have been by phone, or the times mistranscribed. But repeated consignment numbers and 11 hours against 8 will not be explained by a typo.
- Record the discrepancy in the audit file, keep his original records unaltered, and note what you did to verify.
- Escalate to the CB's quality or technical manager the same day. The certification decision must not proceed on this area until the evidence has been re-established.
Loyalty to a colleague you mentored, and sympathy for his family situation, are exactly the pressures that make auditors cover for each other. The value of the audit depends on not doing that.
2. Which principles are engaged, and what should happen if he denies it?
Read the worked answer
The principles at stake are integrity, fair presentation, due professional care and the evidence-based approach. A record stating interviews and samples that did not happen is a false record; a report built on it is misleading whether or not the underlying management system is sound. The CB's impartiality and accreditation are also engaged, because certification decisions rest on audit evidence - falsified evidence invalidates the decision, not just the report.
If he denies it, do not adjudicate. Your role is to establish and record the facts and refer the matter. The CB's procedure decides the outcome: removal from the team, competence review, or a disciplinary process. What you must not do is resolve it privately, silently redo his section and issue the report as though nothing happened. That conceals a conduct issue the CB needs to know about and leaves false records in the certification file. If he admits it, the same escalation applies - an apology does not make the evidence valid.
3. Should you personally re-perform his sampling, and what does that fix and not fix?
Read the worked answer
You may gather evidence, but be precise about what it is. As team leader you can re-sample the consignment records yourself, or assign another team member, recording the date, the sampler, the sample size and the result. What you cannot do is overwrite or 'correct' his records so the file looks consistent - the original record and the verification must both remain visible in the audit file.
The bigger problem is scope. If his area now rests on a re-sample done two days later by a different person, the audit conclusion for that area has to be rebuilt, and the certification decision-maker must know the original evidence was unreliable. In practice that usually means a short follow-up audit or a deferral rather than a patched report.
Whether the client's warehouse manager confirms he was in the building is secondary: a person can be on site and still not have conducted the interviews or the sampling recorded in his name.