Write-up

The standard

The goal is that someone can work it just by reading what I wrote: locations, sizes, references.

That means every nonconformance I write has the same bones. The characteristic and where it lives on the print. The requirement, nominal and tolerance, as printed. The method and the gage, with the gage ID and its calibration due date. The actual readings, to the print's decimals, never rounded. Where on the part. How many pieces, which lot, how many sampled. Where the material is now and how it's tagged. What I recommend. Who I am and when I wrote it.

What it doesn't have is my opinion about why. Cause is the QE's call and the supplier's problem. If I speculate, someone downstream inherits my guess as a lead. I write what I measured and where I put the parts.

Worked example

Illustrative. The part, the lot, the gage IDs, and the readings are invented. The structure is exactly how I write them.

Print excerpt, characteristics table

Nonconformance record

Part
Bracket, sensor mount, P/N EX-1042, Rev C
Rev matters more than P/N. A QE checking whether the requirement changed needs it first.
Characteristic
Char. 7, slot depth, sheet 1, zone C4
Requirement
.3750 +.0000 / -.0030, min .3720
Method and gage
Depth micrometer DM-0117, 0 to 1", .0001 resolution, cal due 2026-11-30
Readings
.3712, .3714, .3711 at three points along slot length
Location
Full slot length, shallowest at the end nearest datum B
Quantity and lot
6 of 6 sampled nonconforming, lot L-26-0912, 24 pieces received, full lot held
Segregation
Red-tagged, MRB cage shelf 3, MES status set to Hold, NC number logged on the tag and the traveler
Recommendation
Hold pending MRB review. No cause stated.
Inspector, date
J. Gray, 2026-09-12