# Nonconformance disposition case, step by step | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/nonconformance-disposition-exception-examples
Last updated: 2026-10-19

The records that explain a disposition are the ones that capture the problem, the authorized action and the checked result in sequence: the inspection report with its sample data, the hold report, the engineering notes on cause, the review board minutes listing options, the customer's answer to any request to ship as is, the rework instruction and the re-inspection. A status field that says "rework, closed" keeps only the ending.

This worked case is part of the [nonconformance disposition guide](/guides/workflow-nonconformance-disposition), which covers what to inventory before a quality platform migration. The [system map](/guides/nonconformance-disposition-records-across-systems) shows which tools hold each record. Here, a QMS consultant can follow one hard case from detection to closure and learn to recognize the same pattern at a client.

## The lot: dimensions pass, coating adhesion fails (Illustrative)

The case is fictional and built for this page. A 260-person precision machining shop produces anodized aluminum housings for an industrial sensor customer. Lot 0417, 1,200 pieces, comes off the line and goes to final inspection.

Every dimension on the drawing passes. Then the tape adhesion test on the anodized finish fails on 3 of 13 samples. Tape tests are a common way to check that a finish stays bonded to metal; ASTM D3359, for example, applies and pulls pressure-sensitive tape over cuts in the film and rates the result from 0 to 5. Dimensionally the parts are perfect; functionally, the finish may flake in service. This is the hardest kind of nonconformance to handle well, a **split verdict**: the part meets one specification and fails another, so no single inspector or engineer can settle it alone.

## Seven decisions and the record each one left

| Step | Decision | Record | Owner | What it proves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Detection | Lot flagged: dimensions pass, adhesion fails 3 of 13 | Inspection report with sample results | Quality inspector | The split verdict and its evidence |
| 2. Containment | Lot placed on hold before shipment | Hold report in the quality system | Quality engineer | Nothing left the building |
| 3. Investigation | Pre-treatment bath found out of range on one shift | Engineering review notes, bath log | Process engineer | A tested cause, not a guess |
| 4. Options | Use as is, strip and re-anodize, or scrap; return to supplier ruled out because coating is in-house | Review board minutes | Board: quality, engineering, production | The alternatives and the cost of each |
| 5. Customer step | Request to ship as is declined; customer asks for rework | Deviation request and reply | Customer's supplier quality contact | Who held the final say, and why |
| 6. Action | Strip, re-treat and re-anodize all 1,200 pieces | Rework traveler | Production supervisor | The authorized action actually performed |
| 7. Verification | Dimensions re-checked after stripping; adhesion passes 13 of 13 | Re-inspection report | Quality inspector | The outcome that closes the loop |

Each row pairs a decision with a named owner and a dated record. Read together they answer the questions any reviewer, auditor or model would ask: what failed, who decided, on what evidence, and did the fix work?

## The customer's no: why the disposition changed

Step 5 is where this case earns its place. The review board's preferred option was use as is: the adhesion failure was marginal, the parts were dimensionally perfect and rework is expensive. That is a legitimate option. ISO's quality vocabulary defines a concession as permission to use or release product that does not conform to specified requirements, generally within specified limits.

But permission to ship nonconforming parts has to come from someone entitled to give it, and for a part made to a customer's drawing that usually includes the customer. Here the customer said no. The disposition changed from use as is to rework, and the file records the request, the refusal and the new decision.

Regulated sectors put it more firmly. In its final rule bringing ISO 13485 into U.S. medical device regulation, FDA notes that acceptance by concession is allowed only when justification is provided, approval is obtained and applicable regulatory requirements are met. A shop that kept the request and the refusal can show that discipline on paper.

## Why the chain beats a status field

A one-word status would hide all of this. The chain says much more. It shows a judgment that changed when a stakeholder with authority weighed in, and a verification step that re-checked dimensions the stripping process could have disturbed, not only the adhesion that failed.

That pairing of judgment and checked outcome is what makes exception records useful for AI training and evaluation. A model can be shown the state at step 4 and asked what the right disposition is, then scored against what the customer decided and what re-inspection found. The [root cause analysis records](/data-types/root-cause-analysis-records) page explains the same value for 8D and CAPA files, and [exception handling and AI agents](/guides/exception-handling-ai-agents-data) covers why documented exceptions matter more than routine volume. Whether a buyer wants disposition histories is decided in SourceX's review, not assumed.

## Recognizing a similar case at a client

A QMS consultant rarely needs to open an NCR to know whether a client keeps cases like this. Judge the history on three questions rather than volume:

1. **Does each report name the requirement that failed and attach the inspection data?** "3 of 13 failed adhesion" beats "finish defect".
2. **Does each disposition carry a justification and an approver, not just a code?** Look for board minutes or an engineering sign-off attached to the report.
3. **Is there a re-inspection or effectiveness record after rework, repair or use as is?** A closed report with no verification record ends the story early.

Then listen for signals in ordinary conversation: deviation requests that customers declined, lots that passed [first article inspection](/data-types/first-article-inspection-report) and failed a later functional test, or review meetings that changed an outcome. Testing labs see similar split verdicts; see [testing laboratory data licensing](/industries/testing-laboratory-data-licensing).

Ask the quality director, at metadata level: which systems hold the hold reports, inspection data, board minutes and rework travelers; since which year; roughly how many a year go to the review board; and who would approve a data licensing discussion. The tree on [who can license nonconformance disposition records](/questions/who-can-license-nonconformance-disposition-records) maps that last answer, especially where records cite customer drawings.

The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records 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. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions and never collect quality records, drawings or exports. What can be licensed, once customer-owned specifications are reviewed, stays unknown until SourceX's rights review.

## 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 client's quality records carry inspection data, justified decisions and re-inspection records, [register as a partner](/register), check the company on [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before introducing the quality director.

## Sources

- https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc176sc1/files/Terms%20in%20TC%20176%20Standards%20Alphabetical%20Listing%20V1%202022%2009%2029.pdf
- https://store.astm.org/d3359-23.html
- https://www.fda.gov/media/177022/download
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms