Non-Conformance & CAPA Agent
Refuses to accept operator error as a root cause
4 of 8 nonconformances need attention.
8 nonconformances checked. 4 flagged. The largest gap is 120 days.
Start with NC-101. Welding has the most flagged.
Whether a root cause is right and whether a fix worked is a quality judgement, not in the data.
Why rows were flagged
- Corrective action overdue40%
- No corrective action due date40%
- Open for over 90 days20%
Value flagged by Area
- Welding1
- Assembly1
- Packing1
- Paint1
Items to act on, worst first
| Item | Area | Value | Days overdue or open | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-101 | Welding | 5 | 120 | Corrective action overdue, Open for over 90 days |
| NC-105 | Assembly | 5 | 15 | No corrective action due date |
| NC-106 | Packing | 1 | 60 | Corrective action overdue |
| NC-103 | Paint | 1 | 29 | No corrective action due date |
What to do this week
- Resolve NC-101 first: it is the most urgent on the list.
- Fix the data or the status on every flagged row, then re-run.
- Re-run this check every time the list changes, before it reaches a decision.
Do
- Fix the highest-risk item first, then run the check again on fresh data.
Don't
- Don't act on one row alone: open the source record first.
How to improve
- Add more detail per row (owner, date, source) so the next report can trace each item.
- Add a second period of data so the next report can show whether things are improving.
Demo
Overview
A large share of corrective action reports name "operator error" or "training" as the root cause. Auditors reject both, and rightly: they say who, not why. The corrective action becomes retraining, nothing changes, and the same non-conformance recurs six months later — which is the finding that actually threatens a certification.
This agent works from your defect record and your own quality procedure. It builds the sequence of what happened, asks why each condition was possible rather than who allowed it, and refuses to accept a cause that a person's behaviour alone explains — if one operator could cause this, the process permitted it, and that is the finding.
Every corrective action it proposes has a verification method, because an action nobody checked is not a corrective action. It also flags where the same cause appears in earlier records you supply, since a recurrence is a different and more serious finding than a first occurrence.
Benefits
Reports that survive an audit
Causes stated as conditions, actions stated as verifiable.
Hours per CAPA, back
The structure and the drafting, done.
Recurrences visible
The pattern across records, which no single report shows.
What it does
Rejects a person as a cause
If one operator could cause this, the process allowed it. That is the finding, and auditors agree.
Follows your quality procedure
Reads your own documented process from your knowledge base, not a generic standard.
Every action gets a verification
An action nobody checked afterwards is not a corrective action, and it fails the next audit.
Separates containment from correction
Sorting today's batch is containment. It does not stop the next one, and reports must not conflate them.
Flags recurrence
The same cause appearing in an earlier record is a more serious finding than a first occurrence.
Marks what is unknown
An unestablished cause is reported as unestablished, with what to check.
What this changes
What this changes about your week
- It takes over
- Writing corrective action reports that survive an audit.
- Done today by
- A quality engineer with eleven open CAPAs.
- How often
- Every non-conformance.
- Typical manual effort
- A properly investigated CAPA is half a day.
Why Manufacturing in particular. It refuses operator error as a root cause. That answer gets rejected, produces retraining that changes nothing, and the defect returns in six months.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Non-Conformance & CAPA Agent has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
How it runs
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
- 1InputValidated against the agent input schema
- 2Modelclaude-opus-5 with automatic fallback
- 3Toolssearch_knowledge, extract_structured_data
- 4PermissionsRuns READ actions automatically; anything higher waits for approval
- 5OutputStructured result matching the output schema
- 6LoggingTokens, duration and every step recorded
Requirements
Integrations
No integrations required.
Before you start
- The defect or non-conformance record
- A knowledge base holding your quality procedures
- Requires the All-Access plan or higher
Use cases
A new non-conformance
Record to draft CAPA in one pass.
Before a certification audit
Find the reports that will be rejected.
Customer complaint
A response built on a cause rather than an apology.
Pricing
All-Access
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits
FAQ
Why will it not blame the operator?
Because auditors do not accept it and it does not prevent recurrence. If a single person's mistake can produce a defect, the process has no barrier — and that missing barrier is the corrective action.
Does it decide whether to release a batch?
No. Disposition is a quality decision with product safety and regulatory consequences, and it stays with a qualified person.
What if we have no documented procedure?
It says so and works from the defect record alone, marking that the procedural check was not performed. It will not substitute a generic standard for yours.
Reviews
Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Need this agent to work differently?
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent