Traceability and compliance
Recording what was decided against
Records keep what was done. What was decided against leaves no trace — and it is exactly what gets questioned later.
A file tells what happened well: what was requested, what arrived, who approved it. What it does not tell is what almost happened and did not — and when someone reviews it a year later, that is the question: «why did you do nothing?».
Decisions that leave no trace by themselves
| Decision | What the file shows | What is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Rejecting a material or a batch | That it did not come in | Why it was rejected and who decided |
| Refusing a change the client asked for | Nothing | That it was considered, and on what grounds |
| Ruling out a supplier | That they are absent | That they were looked at and why they did not fit |
| Deciding something does not apply | A gap | That the gap is deliberate and not an oversight |
Important
The last row does the most damage in a review: **a gap and a decision to do nothing look identical from outside**. If a file lacks an analysis, a permit or a check, whoever looks cannot tell whether you assessed it and concluded it did not apply or simply missed it. And in doubt, they read the second. Two lines written that day — «not applicable because…» — turn a hole into a criterion.
How to record it without creating bureaucracy
- 1
In the file itself, not in separate minutes
Where whoever asks will look, not where you would file it.
- 2
What was assessed, on what information and who decided
Three facts: the rest is surplus.
- 3
The same day, with the information available then
A justification written after the outcome shows.
- 4
And if the decision later changes, add rather than amend
Changing your mind on new data is normal and explains itself.
Watch out
There is one case where this beats any other record: **when whoever decides against is not the person who raised it**. Someone flags a risk, it is assessed and the decision is to carry on. If that is not written down, the warning disappears and whoever gave it looks as if they never did — or, depending who tells the story, as the only one who knew. Recording it protects both sides, which is why it should be a habit rather than something done when trust is low.
What does not need recording
Worth knowing
In some sectors certain decisions not to act must be documented in a specific way. **What yours requires is for your adviser or quality manager to say**; here it is the general habit, which serves for everything else.
›Is this not covering your back?
It is explaining a criterion. The difference is writing it before you know the outcome.
›What if the decision was verbal?
Summarise it in writing that day: the same habit as with agreements.
›Where do I keep it if there is no file?
In the supplier's or the project's: not in anyone's inbox.
A real case
The situation
A company considers an extra test on a batch, decides it does not apply and records nothing.
What you do
- Writes two lines that day on why it did not apply and who decided
What you get
At review, the gap reads as a criterion rather than an oversight.
The situation
A decision is taken not to do something and nobody notes it.
What you do
- Records the decision and its reason
What you get
The omission is a documented decision.
The situation
Months later it looks like an oversight.
What you do
- Checks the decision record
What you get
What was decided is told from what was forgotten.
The situation
A recommendation is rejected and there is no record.
What you do
- Records who decided and why
What you get
The decision has an owner.
The situation
Something is postponed indefinitely.
What you do
- Records the review date
What you get
What was postponed comes back to the table.
The situation
An auditor asks why something was not done.
What you do
- Shows the recorded decision
What you get
The answer is a decision rather than a silence.
This article answers
- how to justify not doing something
- we rejected a batch and did not record it
- proving we considered and dismissed something
- documenting a decision not to act