AI Audit Project Consulting

Turn your audit and receiving practices into versioned rules software can apply and people can defend.

A scoped project to assess how you work now, engineer the rules, and implement the checks. A named reviewer still owns the disposition. Quoted after scoping.

1. 01

   Files

   Certificates, temperatures, findings, and the briefs people write when something does not match.

2. 02

   Suggestions

   Versioned rules applied to those files, with the control and the version named.

3. 03

   Human confirm

   A named reviewer records the disposition. The suggestion does not release a lot.

4. 04

   Brief

   A record you can reopen: what was suggested, who confirmed, and which rule was in force.

• Rules live in SOPs and in people’s heads

  A limit, a temperature, a certificate that must still be current — someone knows. The next reviewer cannot always see which version decided last month’s hold.

• Audits surface the same gaps

  The finding is familiar. The check that should have caught it is still a folder of PDFs, or a habit that walked out with one person.

• You want a path the software can walk

  From the file, to a cited suggestion, to a person who confirms, to a brief. Traceable, and still signed by a human.

This is a project with an end. We start from the evidence your team already handles, and from the policies you already wrote.

1. 01

   Assessment

   We follow how evidence moves today: certificates of analysis, supplier certs, temperatures, findings, and briefs.

2. 02

   Rule engineering

   A foundation pack first — Part 111-style for supplements, or incoming safety for grocery — then the custom controls drawn from your SOPs and policies.

3. 03

   Implementation

   The checks go into Auditara. If the software comes later, you leave with the rule set written down.

4. 04

   Training

   Reviewers see what the system is suggesting, and what they still decide. The last word stays with quality control.

• A written assessment

  How evidence moves today, and where the same question keeps getting answered twice.

• A versioned rule set

  Foundation, plus the controls from your own documents. Each version can be named later.

• A working path

  Files, then a suggestion, then a human confirm, then a brief — in the product, or as a handoff your team can still follow.

• Reviewers who know the difference

  What the system may propose, and what a named person must still record.

If you want shorter counsel with the principal, without a full implementation, that is Principal Consulting. The two can be combined. Neither replaces the other.

• Suggestions, then a name

  The software suggests. Quality control confirms. Nothing in this project releases a lot on its own.

• The quality unit stays yours

  Reviewers still record the disposition. This project does not stand in for the quality system you already run.

• No certificate from us

  This is not an FDA or GFSI certification, and we do not invent a legal conclusion.

• Scope in a short statement of work

  What is in, and what stays with you, is written before implementation. Quoted after scoping.

Tell us about an investigation you still run by hand. We read each request in turn.