Evidence
Event facts, investigation records, testing, interviews, process data, and supporting records.
Deviation Investigation
A completed investigation can contain the event description, root-cause conclusion, actions, and closure signature while still leaving the reasoning behind disposition difficult to reconstruct later.
The investigation distinction
A deviation investigation should establish what happened, define the scope, evaluate plausible causes, assess product and process impact, and support an appropriate disposition. The consequential decision comes when Quality accepts that investigation as sufficient for closure or continued action.
A later reviewer should not need to infer that reasoning from disconnected investigation notes, risk assessments, CAPA references, and signatures.
The closure record
Event facts, investigation records, testing, interviews, process data, and supporting records.
Why the investigation supported the selected root-cause, impact, and disposition conclusions.
Product impact, recurrence uncertainty, alternative explanations, and residual exposure.
Who accepted the investigation and closure decision, and under what authority.
What a reviewer should be able to reconstruct
The event, scope, affected materials or processes, and known facts are clear.
The root-cause conclusion is supported by evidence and competing explanations were considered where relevant.
Quality and product impact, recurrence exposure, and residual uncertainty were evaluated.
The selected disposition, follow-up, and accountable closure authority are visible in the record.
From authority page to proof
The Case File demonstrates the structure of a reviewer-ready deviation-closure decision. If the issue is an actual completed consequential decision that may need a durable record, the IRR is the live-decision path.
Related authority pages