Completed decision record

Could your decision stand without the people who made it?

Inspect a completed GMP decision record to see the evidence, judgment, risk, and authorization an independent reviewer should be able to find.

Inspect the completed record Check one of your own decisions

Fictitious GMP example · CAPA-2025-0118

Eighteen months later, an investigator asks why this CAPA was closed.

This record answers four questions without calling the people who closed it.

4 of 4 answers depend on people4 of 4 answers are in the record

What did you know when you closed it?

Without a record

Results sit across the monitoring system, training files and audit notes. Someone has to rebuild the picture.

In this record

Four dated references are listed in one place: the monitoring trend, retraining records, SOP-EM-318 R04 and audit AUDIT-2025-031.

Open §02 Evidence Reviewed

Why was 90 days enough?

Without a record

The reasoning lived in a meeting. The answer depends on who still remembers it.

In this record

Closure rested on four findings agreeing, not on 90 quiet days alone: no repeat excursion, retraining, the revised procedure, and an independent audit at day 65.

Open §04 Decision Reasoning

What did you knowingly leave open?

Without a record

Open items surface for the first time in front of the investigator.

In this record

The missing residual-risk statement is named as a gap, marked “not documented,” and accepted. It was not written in afterward.

Open §03 Risk & Limitations

Who accepted it, and on what basis?

Without a record

A signature with nothing attached to explain it.

In this record

P. Trubl, Director, Quality Systems & CAPA, authorized closure on 12-AUG-2025, on the evidence listed.

Open §01 Authorization
Start with the authorization

Illustrative structure only. Not regulatory guidance or a real company decision.

COMPLIANCEWORXSThe Record Behind the Decision
Inspection Response RecordCAPA-2025-0118
§01

Authorization

CAPA Effectiveness Closure

Authorized by
P. Trubl
Role
Director, Quality Systems & CAPA
Decision date
12-AUG-2025
Originating record
DEV-2025-0042

Authorization summary

P. Trubl authorized closure of CAPA-2025-0118 after the defined effectiveness window. The submitted record showed zero recurrence during the 90-day environmental-monitoring period, completion of analyst retraining, implementation of SOP-EM-318 R04, and a day-65 internal audit observation confirming execution of the revised procedure.

Inspection question this section answersWho authorized closure, what was authorized, and when?
§02

Evidence Reviewed

What was available to support the authorization

EvidenceReferenceWhat it supports
Environmental-monitoring trendEM-DAILY · 14-MAY–12-AUGNo recurrence across the verification window
Analyst retraining recordsTRAIN-EM · 02-MAYCorrective action implemented
Revised procedureSOP-EM-318 R04Procedural control in force
Internal audit observationAUDIT-2025-031 · 18-JULObserved compliant execution at day 65
Inspection question this section answersWhat evidence did the authorizing person rely on?
§03

Risk & Limitations

The record shows what is known — and what is not.

A credible record does not hide uncertainty. Where a fact, review, or justification was not documented, the record identifies that limitation clearly. It does not convert a later explanation into contemporaneous evidence.
Material gap identified during intake

Residual risk was not documented in the source record.

The original CAPA record concluded that the corrective action was effective but did not state what uncertainty remained after closure or what residual risk was being accepted.

Treatment selectedMark as not documented
Accepted byP. Trubl · 12-AUG-2025 14:32

ComplianceWorxs preserves this limitation rather than generating a convenient risk statement that the source record does not support.

Inspection question this section answersWhat remained uncertain, and was that uncertainty honestly preserved?
§04

Decision Reasoning

Why the available record supported closure

The authorization relied on convergence rather than absence of recurrence alone. The monitoring trend showed no repeat excursion during the effectiveness window; the analyst population had completed retraining; the revised procedure was in force; and the internal audit provided an independent observation that the revised process was being followed.

The record therefore supports the conclusion that the corrective action was operating as intended during the documented period. It does not establish conditions outside that period, and the missing residual-risk statement remains a known limitation of the source record.

Observed evidence→Effectiveness conclusion→Authorization
Inspection question this section answersWhy did the evidence justify this authorization at that time?
§05

Audit Trail

How the record was completed

  1. Source record evaluated

    CAPA closure record and four supporting references entered into the IRR workflow.

  2. Material gap surfaced

    Residual risk statement not found in the supplied record.

  3. Treatment options presented

    Add documented information · Link evidence · Mark not documented · Route for human review.

  4. User selected treatment

    “Mark not documented.” No unsupported language was added.

  5. Human acceptance recorded

    P. Trubl accepted the treatment and the limitation was preserved in the completed record.

Inspection question this section answersWhat changed during completion, who accepted it, and what was preserved?

Now test one of your own decisions.

Choose a consequential decision and ask: can the existing record show what evidence was available, how judgment was applied, what risk remained, and who authorized the outcome, without asking the original team to reconstruct it?

If yes

Your existing record may already preserve what an independent reviewer would need. No additional action may be necessary.

If uncertain

Use the Decision Documentation Assessment to determine whether your responses indicate a reason for closer examination.

Check one decision →

If no

An Inspection Response Record can organize the available evidence and preserve the known limitations of what can, and cannot, be reconstructed.

Create an IRR — $497 →

Preserve your decision

Create the record behind one consequential decision.

For one completed GMP decision, ComplianceWorxs organizes the available evidence, judgment, risk, alternatives, reasoning, and authorization into an Inspection Response Record.

You receive:

  • One completed Inspection Response Record
  • Organized source evidence
  • Explicit limitations and missing documentation
  • Preserved reasoning, risk, and authorization
  • A record designed for independent review

If the record is created after the decision, it can organize available evidence and identify known limitations. It cannot recreate evidence that was never preserved.