FactoryQA AI audit ratings need clause-and-evidence review

The audit basis must be versioned before the documents are rated

The direct answer is that an AI audit result is interpretable only when the audit basis is explicit. FactoryQA's official site says the AI Auditor evaluates uploaded documents against ISO and AS standards and returns a rating for requirements. Buyers should require the exact standard, edition, amendment, licensed source boundary, scheme or customer additions, organization scope, site, product and process context, exclusions, applicability decisions, audit objective, criteria, and run date. A generic label such as ISO compliant cannot identify what was actually evaluated.

Preserve the model or service version, prompt or instruction set, retrieval corpus and revision, mapping logic, configuration, temperature or other material settings where exposed, user, execution time, inputs, outputs, and errors. If protected standards content is used, confirm lawful access and reuse rather than reconstructing requirements from an unverified summary. A later corpus, mapping, or model change should create a new run and explain differences; it should not silently rewrite the record supporting an earlier review.

Linked text is not necessarily implementation evidence

An uploaded procedure may describe an intended control without showing that the control operates. For each clause or criterion, distinguish policy, procedure, form, completed record, objective evidence, interview, observation, sampling result, calculation, customer requirement, and prior finding. Retain the document ID and revision, effective date, approval state, cited page or section, extracted passage, relationship to the criterion, conflicts, missing evidence, and source owner. An obsolete or draft procedure should not receive the same evidentiary weight as an approved record from the audit period.

The system should allow a qualified reviewer to accept, reject, narrow, or supplement every mapping. Preserve the original suggestion, reviewer identity and competence, evidence visible at review time, disposition, reason, additional sample, and approval. A status such as met, partial, missing, or not applicable is not self-proving. Not applicable needs scope authority and rationale. Met requires enough relevant evidence. Missing documentary evidence may identify a gap, but it does not establish that a process never operated.

Findings, corrective action, and certification remain separate

FactoryQA documents links among audits, issues, tasks, and corrective or preventive actions. Buyers should keep AI observation, auditor finding, severity, containment, root-cause analysis, correction, corrective action, implementation, effectiveness verification, closure, and management review as distinct records. Suggested root causes or actions must remain hypotheses until the organization evaluates evidence. Task completion and uploaded proof do not by themselves establish effectiveness or prevent recurrence.

An internal readiness assessment is not a certification audit, and a generated rating is not a certification decision, product conformity conclusion, process-capability result, customer approval, or regulatory determination. Record the auditor or certification body's independent scope and conclusions without implying that a software result controlled them. If generated procedures are used, subject them to document ownership, technical review, approval, training, implementation, change control, and effectiveness evidence. Fluent language cannot substitute for an operating quality system.

Test plausible citations that conflict with field evidence

Use a representative audit with one current procedure, one obsolete revision, one draft, one completed record outside the audit period, one valid sample, one missing record, and one procedure that conflicts with observed practice. Include a criterion whose applicability changes by product or site. Run the analysis twice after changing one source document and verify that the tool preserves both runs, cites exact revisions, exposes uncertainty, prevents unauthorized disposition, records reviewer overrides, and does not close a finding when the linked corrective-action task is merely complete.

FactoryQA's official site supports the attributed provider statements about document analysis, requirement-level ratings, linked evidence, explanations, run controls, generated procedure drafts, and connected QMS modules. It does not establish model accuracy, complete or licensed criteria, correct applicability, evidence sufficiency, a configured audit trail, procedure quality, corrective-action effectiveness, certification, compliance, conformity, or business outcome. Quality, engineering, process, metrology, audit, information-security, legal, customer, and certification professionals retain those decisions.

Enterprise buyer test

Translate this change into the exact population, record type, workflow stage, decision owner, effective date, and evidence that could be affected. Ask current or prospective providers to demonstrate the named workflow with representative data and an exception—not a polished feature tour. Record what official documentation establishes, what a provider states, what the team observes, and what remains unresolved.

A defensible review also identifies the dependency outside the product. Authority interpretation, policy configuration, data quality, integrations, human judgment, approval rights, release governance, training, and retained evidence may remain customer or service responsibilities. The evaluation should preserve those boundaries instead of treating a technology claim as the complete operating model.

What we will watch next

Quality Systems Index will watch the named source and affected market records for later evidence that changes status, scope, availability, implementation timing, workflow consequence, or the limits of the initial report. A later announcement does not silently overwrite this dated account; the change ledger preserves the sequence.