CASE 05 · CASE ATLAS · LEVEL B WORKSHOP SCENARIO

Control-plan consistency

SITUATION

An internal audit needs to confirm that the risk analysis, control plan and inspection instructions for a critical characteristic still agree with each other after several change requests were processed independently over the past year.

EVIDENCE

The current risk analysis, control plan and inspection instruction documents, each with revision history, linked by the shared characteristic identifier.

AI APPROACH

The Quality Evidence Graph connects the characteristic across all three documents and flags where a control frequency, method or acceptance limit in one document no longer matches another.

KEY CONTROLS

The graph reports a broken link as a finding requiring investigation, not as a confirmed error; it states explicitly which document pair it compared and on which revisions.

VALIDATION MEASURES

Test on a known set of documents with deliberately introduced inconsistencies (seeded cases) to confirm the tool catches them before trusting it on live documents.

HUMAN DECISION

The document owner or auditor decides whether a flagged inconsistency reflects an unresolved change-control gap and initiates the correction.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. What is the practical consequence if a control-plan frequency silently drifted from the risk analysis for six months?
  2. How do you know the graph compared the current revisions and not a superseded one?
  3. What seeded inconsistency would you plant to confirm this tool actually works before relying on it?

TRY IT LIVE

Run this scenario's approach through Quality Evidence Graph — What connects this decision to its evidence, controls, and lessons learned?

Open Quality Evidence Graph →