---

name: conduct-gxp-audit locale: caveman-ultra source_locale: en source_commit: 82c77053 fence_basis_commit: 82c77053 translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman" translation_date: "2026-04-19" description: > Conduct a GxP audit of computerized systems and processes. Covers audit planning, opening meetings, evidence collection, finding classification (critical/major/minor), CAPA generation, closing meetings, report writing, and follow-up verification. Use for scheduled internal audits, supplier qualification audits, pre-inspection readiness assessments, for-cause audits triggered by deviations or data integrity concerns, or periodic compliance posture reviews of validated systems. license: MIT allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob metadata: author: Philipp Thoss version: "1.0" domain: compliance complexity: advanced language: multi tags: gxp, audit, capa, inspection, compliance, quality-assurance

Conduct GxP Audit

Plan + execute GxP audit of computerized systems, data integrity practices, or regulated procs.

Use When

• Scheduled internal audit of validated computerized system
• Supplier/vendor qualification audit for GxP-relevant software
• Pre-inspection readiness assessment before regulatory audit
• For-cause audit triggered by deviation, complaint, or data integrity concern
• Periodic review of validated system's compliance posture

In

• Required: Audit scope (system, proc, or site to audit)
• Required: Applicable regs (21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11, GMP, GLP, GCP)
• Required: Prev audit reports + open CAPA items
• Optional: System valid. docs (URS, VP, IQ/OQ/PQ, traceability matrix)
• Optional: SOPs, training records, change control logs
• Optional: Specific risk areas / concerns triggering audit

Do

Step 1: Develop Audit Plan

# Audit Plan
## Document ID: AP-[SYS]-[YYYY]-[NNN]

### 1. Objective
[State the purpose: scheduled, for-cause, supplier qualification, pre-inspection]

### 2. Scope
- **System/Process**: [Name and version]
- **Regulations**: [21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11, ICH Q7, etc.]
- **Period**: [Date range of records under review]
- **Exclusions**: [Any areas explicitly out of scope]

### 3. Audit Criteria
| Area | Regulatory Reference | Key Requirements |
|------|---------------------|------------------|
| Electronic records | 21 CFR 11.10 | Controls for closed systems |
| Audit trail | 21 CFR 11.10(e) | Secure, computer-generated, time-stamped |
| Electronic signatures | 21 CFR 11.50 | Manifestation, legally binding |
| Access controls | EU Annex 11, §12 | Role-based, documented |
| Data integrity | MHRA guidance | ALCOA+ principles |
| Change control | ICH Q10 | Documented, assessed, approved |

### 4. Schedule
| Date | Time | Activity | Participants |
|------|------|----------|-------------|
| Day 1 AM | 09:00 | Opening meeting | All |
| Day 1 AM | 10:00 | Document review | Auditor + QA |
| Day 1 PM | 13:00 | System walkthrough | Auditor + IT + System Owner |
| Day 2 AM | 09:00 | Interviews + evidence collection | Auditor + Users |
| Day 2 PM | 14:00 | Finding consolidation | Auditor |
| Day 2 PM | 16:00 | Closing meeting | All |

### 5. Audit Team
| Role | Name | Responsibility |
|------|------|---------------|
| Lead Auditor | [Name] | Plan, execute, report |
| Subject Matter Expert | [Name] | Technical assessment |
| Auditee Representative | [Name] | Facilitate access and information |

→ Audit plan approved by QA mgmt + communicated to auditee ≥ 2 weeks before audit. If err: Reschedule if auditee can't provide req'd docs or personnel.

Step 2: Conduct Opening Meeting

Agenda:

1. Introduce audit team + roles
2. Confirm scope, schedule, logistics
3. Explain finding classification (critical/major/minor)
4. Confirm confidentiality
5. ID auditee escorts + doc custodians
6. Address questions

→ Opening meeting doc'd w/ attendance record. If err: Key personnel unavail → reschedule affected audit activities.

Step 3: Collect + Review Evidence

Review docs + records vs. audit criteria:

3a. Validation Documentation Review

• URS exists + approved
• Valid. plan matches system category + risk
• IQ/OQ/PQ protocols executed w/ results doc'd
• Traceability matrix links req's to test results
• Deviations doc'd + resolved
• Valid. summary report approved

3b. Operational Controls Review

• SOPs current + approved
• Training records show competence all users
• Change control records complete (req, assessment, approval, valid.)
• Incident/deviation reports handled per SOP
• Periodic review conducted on schedule

3c. Data Integrity Assessment

• Audit trail enabled + not user-modifiable
• Electronic sigs meet reg req's
• Backup + recovery docs'd + tested
• Access controls enforce role-based perms
• Data: attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate (ALCOA+)

3d. System Configuration Review

• Prod config matches validated state
• User accounts reviewed — no shared accounts, inactive disabled
• System clocks sync'd + accurate
• Security patches applied per approved change control

→ Evidence collected as screenshots, doc copies, interview notes w/ timestamps. If err: Can't verify → record "unable to verify" as observation + reason.

Step 4: Classify Findings

Classify each finding by severity:

Classification	Definition	Response Required
Critical	Direct impact on product quality, patient safety, or data integrity. Systematic failure of a key control.	Immediate containment + CAPA within 15 business days
Major	Significant departure from GxP requirements. Potential to impact data integrity if uncorrected.	CAPA within 30 business days
Minor	Isolated deviation from procedure. No direct impact on data integrity or product quality.	Correction within 60 business days
Observation	Opportunity for improvement. Not a regulatory requirement.	Optional — tracked for trend analysis

Doc each finding:

## Finding F-[NNN]
**Classification:** [Critical / Major / Minor / Observation]
**Area:** [Audit trail / Access control / Change control / etc.]
**Reference:** [Regulatory clause, e.g., 21 CFR 11.10(e)]

**Observation:**
[Objective description of what was found]

**Evidence:**
[Document ID, screenshot reference, interview notes]

**Regulatory Expectation:**
[What the regulation requires]

**Risk:**
[Impact on data integrity, product quality, or patient safety]

→ Every finding has classification, evidence, reg ref. If err: Classification disputed → escalate to audit program manager for adjudication.

Step 5: Conduct Closing Meeting

Agenda:

1. Present findings summary (no new findings should be raised)
2. Review finding classifications
3. Discuss prelim CAPA expectations + timelines
4. Confirm next steps + report timeline
5. Acknowledge auditee cooperation

→ Closing meeting doc'd w/ attendance. Auditee acknowledges findings (acknowledgement ≠ agreement). If err: Auditee disputes finding → doc disagreement + escalate per SOP.

Step 6: Write Audit Report

# Audit Report
## Document ID: AR-[SYS]-[YYYY]-[NNN]

### 1. Executive Summary
An audit of [System/Process] was conducted on [dates] against [regulations].
[N] findings were identified: [n] critical, [n] major, [n] minor, [n] observations.

### 2. Scope and Methodology
[Summarize audit plan scope, criteria, and methods used]

### 3. Findings Summary
| Finding ID | Classification | Area | Brief Description |
|-----------|---------------|------|-------------------|
| F-001 | Major | Audit trail | Audit trail disabled for batch record module |
| F-002 | Minor | Training | Two users missing annual GxP training |
| F-003 | Observation | Documentation | SOP formatting inconsistencies |

### 4. Detailed Findings
[Include full finding details from Step 4 for each finding]

### 5. Positive Observations
[Document areas of good practice observed during the audit]

### 6. Conclusion
The overall compliance status is assessed as [Satisfactory / Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory].

### 7. Distribution
| Recipient | Role |
|-----------|------|
| [Name] | System Owner |
| [Name] | QA Director |
| [Name] | IT Manager |

### Approval
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|------|------|-----------|------|
| Lead Auditor | | | |
| QA Director | | | |

→ Report issued within 15 business days of closing meeting. If err: Delayed beyond 15 days → notify stakeholders + doc reason.

Step 7: Track CAPA + Verify Effectiveness

Each finding requiring CAPA:

## CAPA Tracking
| Finding ID | CAPA ID | Root Cause | Corrective Action | Due Date | Status | Effectiveness Check |
|-----------|---------|------------|-------------------|----------|--------|-------------------|
| F-001 | CAPA-2025-042 | Configuration oversight during upgrade | Enable audit trail, verify all modules | 2025-04-15 | Open | Scheduled 2025-07-15 |
| F-002 | CAPA-2025-043 | Training matrix not updated | Complete training, update tracking | 2025-05-01 | Open | Scheduled 2025-08-01 |

→ CAPAs assigned, tracked, effectiveness verified per defined timeline. If err: Unresolved CAPAs escalate to QA mgmt + flag in next audit cycle.

Check

• Audit plan approved + communicated pre-audit
• Opening + closing meetings doc'd w/ attendance
• Evidence collected w/ timestamps + source refs
• Every finding has classification, evidence, reg ref
• Audit report issued within 15 business days
• CAPAs assigned w/ due dates for all critical + major findings
• Prev audit CAPAs verified for closure effectiveness

Traps

• Scope creep: Expanding scope during exec w/o formal agreement → incomplete coverage + disputes.
• Opinion-based findings: Findings must ref specific reg req's, not personal preferences.
• Adversarial tone: Audits = collaborative quality improvement, not interrogations.
• Ignore positives: Reporting only findings w/o acknowledging good practices undermines trust.
• No effectiveness check: Closing CAPA w/o verifying fix actually works = recurring regulatory citation.

→

• perform-csv-assessment — full CSV lifecycle assessment (URS through validation summary)
• setup-gxp-r-project — project structure for validated R environments
• implement-audit-trail — audit trail impl for electronic records
• write-validation-documentation — IQ/OQ/PQ protocol + report writing
• security-audit-codebase — security-focused code audit (complementary perspective)