What documentation does AS9100 require for non-conformance and corrective actions?

AS9100 requires documented information, but not a single mandated template, for both nonconformities and corrective actions. In practice, you need records that show the issue was identified, contained or controlled, dispositioned appropriately, investigated when necessary, corrected, and reviewed for effectiveness where corrective action is required.

For nonconformity management, organizations commonly maintain records such as:

• identification of the nonconformity, including what failed and where it was found
• product, part, batch, serial, lot, work order, or process traceability needed to define scope
• containment or segregation actions to prevent unintended use or shipment
• evaluation of the nonconformity, including impact, severity, and whether other product or processes may be affected
• disposition decisions such as rework, repair, use-as-is if allowed by your process and approvals, return to supplier, or scrap
• authority for the disposition and evidence of review where required
• verification that dispositioned product met requirements before release, if reworked or otherwise corrected

For corrective action, the records usually need to show:

• the source of the issue, such as NCRs, escapes, audit findings, customer complaints, supplier issues, or recurring internal failures
• the problem definition and scope
• root cause analysis or other cause evaluation appropriate to the significance of the issue
• the action plan, including responsibilities and timing
• implementation evidence
• review of effectiveness after implementation
• updates to risk, training, procedures, work instructions, inspection plans, or controls if those changes were part of the response

What AS9100 expects in detail depends on the clause involved, the seriousness of the issue, customer requirements, and your own documented QMS processes. Not every nonconformance requires a full corrective action record. Many can be handled through nonconformance control and disposition alone. Corrective action is generally expected when the issue is systemic, recurrent, escaped to the customer, or indicates process control weakness.

What AS9100 does not do

AS9100 does not guarantee that one form, software workflow, or naming convention will satisfy every auditor or customer. It also does not remove the need for your organization to define who can disposition product, when MRB review is required, how root cause is determined, what triggers CAPA, and how effectiveness is verified. Those decisions must be controlled in your QMS and followed consistently.

Common documentation expectations in real plants

In regulated and long lifecycle environments, the record set often extends beyond a basic NCR and CAPA form. You may need links to affected travelers, inspection results, supplier records, concession or deviation records, training changes, document revisions, and evidence of release control. If your plant runs mixed systems, this evidence may be split across QMS, ERP, MES, PLM, and email or paper attachments. That is common, but it increases retrieval effort, audit friction, and the risk of incomplete traceability.

Full replacement of legacy quality or execution systems is often not realistic just to improve NCR and CAPA documentation. In brownfield aerospace environments, replacement can fail because of validation burden, downtime risk, integration complexity, qualified process impacts, and the amount of historical traceability that must remain accessible. A more practical approach is often to tighten workflow controls, authority rules, and cross-system record linkage before attempting major platform changes.

Minimum practical answer

If you want the shortest accurate answer: AS9100 requires documented evidence that nonconforming outputs are controlled and that corrective actions, when needed, address causes and are reviewed for effectiveness. The standard expects traceable records, but the exact documents, fields, approvals, and system locations are defined by your QMS, customer requirements, and operational setup.

This is a quality system requirement, not a compliance guarantee. Whether your documentation is sufficient depends on process definition, discipline in execution, retention practices, and whether records can be retrieved and defended consistently.