Choose audit coverage from risk, changes and prior findings. Keep the focus and preparation state visible across engagements, with the rationale behind the scope and any deferral.
All blueprints
Know exactly what your audit evidence contains.
Connect requests, selected source versions, findings and commitments. Ask neil to prepare evidence packages and make missing work visible.
The source changed.
The package didn’t.
A selected source, a later revision, an unanswered request. Follow the actual records in this Seal example.
New evidence belongs to a new source version.
Seal’s version comparison shows the original finding and the added reconciliation. Technical review is still open; inspecting this revision does not replace the packaged source. On phones, the capture focuses on the later record.
Actual Seal interface, fictional demo records. Published means a saved version—not audit approval. These captures do not show neil execution.
Start with the questions—not a blank checklist.
A batch-review audit, a supplier visit and a laboratory audit need different preparation. Put the focus, window, lead and outstanding work together, then follow each engagement into its scope and evidence requests.
Use prior findings and changes to decide where to look. Retain the reasons for the scope, and check auditor competence and independence before confirming the assignment.
Put neil on the preparation.
Bring the request, the procedure and the records you can access. Ask neil to investigate the evidence and prepare the work needed to respond—not just summarise the audit.
neil uses supplied documents and permitted records. Proposed records and configuration need review; people authorise disclosure, test changes and approve publication.
Prepare the evidence response
“Find the batch reviews selected for this request. Show the versions and anything still missing.”
Assemble candidate sources, compare the selected revisions with later changes, and prepare linked requests for missing evidence. Keep the selection rationale available for disclosure review.
Investigate a recurring finding
“Compare this finding with earlier audits. What recurred, and what would distinguish the possible causes?”
Trace findings into responses and effectiveness records. Prepare an assessment with evidence for and against each explanation, gaps to resolve and proposed follow-up work—not an unsupported root-cause verdict.
Configure the request workflow
“Turn our inspection procedure into a reusable evidence-request and review workflow.”
Author templates, capture fields, source references and review states in Seal. Prepare verification cases for a missing source, a changed revision and an unauthorised completion attempt. Your team tests and approves the configuration.
A finding is the start of the work.
B-047 is missing from the example package. First obtain the source and establish why it was missing. A retrieval problem and a missing technical review are different problems; neither should be declared the cause without evidence.
Keep the assessment, proposed change and verification linked to the package. Each has its own owner, due date and state, so a completed task cannot hide an unanswered question.
Close on evidence, not activity.
Decide how effectiveness will be assessed before calling an action complete. Define the population, selection rule and acceptance criteria; retain the source versions, exceptions and reviewer’s decision.
If a commitment continues beyond audit closure, keep its owner, authority and follow-up visible. In this fictional example, the assessment, change and effectiveness review are still open.
Capabilities
Prepare questions, evidence needs and responsibilities for the work being assessed. Record the assignment’s competence and independence evidence separately from a name on the schedule.
Keep exact request wording, the selection rule and specific source versions together. Make missing sources explicit and review later revisions before replacing evidence in a package.
Explore this blueprintEstablish the condition and supporting evidence before classifying a finding. Connect the response to its assessment and actions, preserving owners and unresolved questions.
Define what would demonstrate improvement, then assign the review and required evidence. Task completion and effectiveness are separate decisions; retain exceptions and the reviewer’s conclusion.
Explore this blueprintTrack requests, responses and outstanding commitments through the inspection. Configure the required review and disclosure steps; keep continuing actions visible after any authorised audit closure.
Check the evidence behind readiness, including current documents, qualifications and unresolved actions. Test retrieval from the records your auditors will actually request.
Explore this blueprintBring the supplier’s approved scope, changes and unresolved qualification work into audit preparation. Follow evidence into the review without treating a supplier name as blanket approval.
Explore this blueprintProgram view in Seal. Planned assignments do not establish competence or independence.
Open full-size image in a new tabConnected records
Entity hierarchy
What it records
Kind
Audit Universe
Sites, processes, systems, products, suppliers, risks, history, ownership, and current state.
entity
Audit Program
Period, universe, risk method, required audits, frequencies, resources, exceptions, and approval.
entity
Annual Risk-Based Audit Program
Internal, supplier and system audits prioritized by risk, change, performance, history, and oversight.
template
AUDIT-PROGRAM-2026-v04
Approved program revised after a supplier-quality signal.
record
Audit or Inspection
Type, objective, scope, criteria, dates, team, auditee, logistics, status, report, and closure.
entity
GxP Process Audit
Scope, criteria, team, preparation, agenda, evidence, execution, findings, report, and closure.
template
AUDIT-QC-LAB04-2026
Completed laboratory audit with one major and two minor findings.
record
Auditor Assignment
Auditor, role, competence, qualification, independence, conflicts, restrictions, and approval.
entity
Audit Agenda
Day, time, process, interviewee, auditor, criteria, questions, walkthrough, samples, and status.
entity
Audit Evidence Request
Wording, clarification, owner, priority, due time, evidence, review, delivery, follow-up, and state.
entity
Regulatory Inspection Request
Inspector wording, clarification, owner, scope, evidence package, review, delivery, and follow-up.
template
REQ-INSP-2026-042
Closed request after an approved replacement evidence package.
record
Audit Evidence Item
Source record, version, scope, selection, rendition, checksum, redaction, review, delivery, and state.
entity
Audit Interview or Walkthrough
Participants, process, questions, responses, demonstrated evidence, observations, follow-ups, and review.
entity
Audit Sample
Population, selection method, strata, selected records, replacements, exceptions, results, and conclusion.
entity
Audit Observation
Condition, location, people, evidence, criterion, clarification, impact, and potential finding.
entity
Audit Finding
Statement, requirement, evidence, scope, severity, recurrence, risk, owner, response, and final state.
entity
GxP Audit Finding
Requirement, objective evidence, scope, severity, systemic assessment, response, and acceptance.
template
FIND-AUDIT-2026-014
Major repeat finding for ineffective periodic access review.
record
Audit Response
Factual response, correction, impact, root cause, actions, commitments, evidence, approval, and acceptance.
entity
Questions and answers
Yes. Configure each engagement’s scope, criteria, roles, evidence requests and review requirements while keeping related source records connected.
An evidence reference can pin a specific version. In the example, the package retains an earlier source revision even after that source changes. Replacing selected evidence needs its own review and history.
Keep the request open with an owner and follow-up. Record why the source is unavailable, or assess an authorised scope change. Missing evidence should not be counted as supplied or reviewed.
Using supplied documents and permitted records, neil can assemble candidate evidence, investigate recurring findings and author request templates, fields and review workflows. People review disclosure, verify configuration and approve changes.
No. In these captures, Published identifies a saved record version. Technical review, disclosure approval, delivery and audit acceptance are separate decisions.
Link the accepted finding and response to the investigation, corrective actions and required verification. Preserve the source evidence and decision rationale. An observation alone does not establish a root cause.
Define the population, selection rule, review period and acceptance criteria for the specific action. Retain the results, source records, exceptions and authorised decision rather than closing solely because tasks are complete.
Start with one real audit request and a small, defined evidence population. Prove selected versions, a missing source, a reviewed replacement and the required access and approval steps before expanding the workflow.
Related blueprints
Pharmaceutical Quality Agreements & External Partner Governance Software
Make sponsor, CDMO, laboratory, supplier, packaging, storage, and distribution responsibilities executable across notifications, investigations, record exchange, release, escalation, performance, and review.
Product Recall & Market Action Management Software
Run health-hazard evaluation, affected-lot and unit scope, recall strategy, authority communication, consignee notification, response tracking, product reconciliation, effectiveness checks, status reporting, and termination.
GxP Computer System Validation (CSV) & Computer Software Assurance (CSA) Software
Control regulated-system inventory, intended use, function risk, supplier evidence, right-sized testing, releases, changes, and periodic review without turning validation into a document factory.
Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer Management Software
Carry process instructions, parameters, calculations and method references into a receiving-site draft. Ask neil to prepare local changes and evidence-linked follow-up work.
GxP Deviation & Investigation Management Software
Connect the event to the batch, sample and original evidence. Ask neil to investigate the history, test competing explanations and prepare the next controlled change.
GxP Change Control Software
Connect the revised instruction to its forms, qualification, verification and effective-use decision. Ask neil to assess the impact and prepare the change package.
See your process in Seal.
Tell us about your workflow. We’ll show you how neil and Seal can help your team.
Book a demo