This worked case is part of the supplier corrective action closure guide. It follows one Illustrative SCAR from the first defect to closure, and shows why the hardest cases make the strongest evidence.
What went wrong: a fix that moved the defect
A fictional 480-person appliance assembler buys injection-molded retaining clips from a molding supplier. Incoming inspection finds short shots, clips where the plastic did not fill the mold, on 2.1% of a lot. The assembler issues a SCAR. The supplier finds that the mold is running cold and raises the mold temperature. Short shots disappear.
Then the next verification inspection measures the clips against the full drawing, not just the original symptom, and finds that they now warp past the flatness limit. The fix removed one cause and introduced another.
ISO's vocabulary anticipates exactly this. ISO/TC 176 defines corrective action as action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and prevent recurrence, and notes that a nonconformity can have more than one cause. ISO auditing guidance describes resolving any nonconformity in three parts, correction, analysis of cause and corrective action, and has auditors verify that the actions actually worked. The hard case is where those three parts have to run twice.
The case, decision by decision (Illustrative)
Every row below is invented for this page. It shows who decided, what they decided and where the decision was written down.
| Week | Who decided | Decision | Record that captured it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Incoming inspection lead | Reject the lot: short shots on 2.1% of clips | Defect report with photos and sample counts |
| 1 | Supplier quality engineer | Issue a SCAR and quarantine stock | SCAR in the customer's QMS, mirrored to the supplier portal |
| 2 | Supplier quality manager | Contain: sort at the supplier, ship certified lots only | Containment response in the portal |
| 3 | Supplier process engineer | Root cause is a cold mold; raise mold temperature | 8D-style response with the changed process setting |
| 5 | Incoming inspection lead | Verification: short shots gone, but clips warp past the flatness limit | Verification inspection with new measurements |
| 5 | Supplier quality engineer | Reopen the SCAR with the new evidence | Reopen entry and comment thread |
| 7 | Supplier process engineer | Revise: adjust cooling time, change the gate, reset mold temperature | Revised response and tool change record |
| 9 to 11 | Incoming inspection lead | Accept three consecutive lots that pass both checks | Verification results per lot |
| 11 | Supplier quality engineer | Close the SCAR | Closure approval with date and approver |
Eleven weeks, four roles on two sides of the supply relationship, nine records. A system that shows only "closed, week 11" hides everything that made the case worth studying.
Why the reopen is the valuable part
Three features turn this sequence into strong evidence of real work.
- A decision was tested against data, not accepted on trust. The week 5 verification measured more than the symptom that opened the SCAR. That choice is visible only because the inspection record lists what was measured.
- The record shows a first answer being wrong. Most business records show what was finally done. A reopen shows the reasoning that failed, the evidence that exposed it and the change that followed.
- The outcome is measured. Closure rests on three lots passing two checks, so a reader can see what "fixed" meant.
ISO guidance on documenting a nonconformity suggests a report form with separate sections for root cause, correction, corrective action and verification of implementation and effectiveness. A company whose SCAR form follows that shape will have each of those decisions in its own field. Histories like this one document how a business handles exceptions that its procedures alone did not resolve, which is the kind of multi-step work record SourceX licenses from companies for AI training and evaluation. The root cause analysis records page explains how 8D and CAPA files are judged more generally.
The record most often missing: verification detail
In most SCAR histories the weak point is not the defect report or the supplier response; both tend to be kept. It is the verification. Three patterns are common:
- Closure on supplier sign-off. The SCAR closes when the supplier says the action is done. No later lot was measured.
- Verification recorded as pass or fail only. The result exists but not what was checked, so a new defect such as warping could never have been caught.
- Reopen recorded as a new SCAR. The second round exists but no longer points to the first, so the history reads as two unrelated defects.
Each pattern is worth asking about, not judging. The system map for SCAR records shows how reopen events and lot numbers carry across the QMS and the supplier portal.
How to recognize similar cases at a client
A quality systems advisor can find cases like this one without opening a single file. Ask the supplier quality head:
- Roughly how many SCARs a year, and how many were ever reopened?
- What share of closures required measured results on later lots?
- Does the verification record list the characteristics measured, or only pass or fail?
- When a fix caused a different defect, was it handled as a reopen or a new SCAR?
- Which suppliers or part families produced repeat or reopened SCARs?
A company with dozens of reopened SCARs a year, verification tied to measured lots and reopens linked to the original is describing a strong exception history. The same problem, action and checked result test appears in the logistics exceptions guide, and the EHS consultant guide covers related plant records.
Qualification and what stays unknown
The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English.
Unknown until SourceX reviews it: how supplier confidentiality affects the supplier's responses, which SCARs a buyer would want, and whether an offer follows. For who should receive the introduction, see who can license SCAR records; the SCAR referral brief template turns the answers above into a one-page handoff.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a manufacturer can show SCARs that reopened when verification caught a new defect, and closed on measured lots, register as a partner, check it against who qualifies and read the program terms before introducing its supplier quality head.