The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You need each finding with a root cause, action, owner and deadline.
- {{plan_owner}}
- {{recipient}}
- {{findings}}
- {{cause_notes}}
- {{owners}}
- {{response_requirements}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Turn the audit or inspection findings below into a corrective action plan, for {{plan_owner}} to agree with the people involved and then send to {{recipient}}. The plan should show that each finding is fixed and that its cause is dealt with, so the same finding does not come back at the next audit. Findings, exactly as written in the report, with their reference numbers: """ {{findings}} """ What we know about why each happened: """ {{cause_notes}} """ People and roles available to own actions: {{owners}} Response deadline and any format the auditor or inspector asked for: {{response_requirements}} Produce: 1. A table with one row per finding and the columns Finding (reference and short quote), Root cause, Correction (the immediate fix), Corrective action (what stops it happening again), Owner, Due date, Evidence of completion, How we will check it worked. 2. Findings whose root cause is not yet known: for each, three or four questions to ask in a short review with the people who do the work. 3. A cover note of under 150 words for the recipient, summarizing the plan and its dates. Keep each table cell under 30 words. The plan should be realistic: every action something the owner can actually finish by the date given. Keep the report's finding references and order so the reader can match each row to the report. A good root cause names something in the process, not a person, for example "The checklist has no step for checking expiry dates" rather than "Staff forgot". "Retrain staff" is not enough on its own: pair it with a change to the process, form, system or check that makes the right thing easier to do. Use only the findings and notes above. Do not invent causes, owners or dates; write "to investigate" or "to assign" instead. Do not commit to actions or dates the owners have not agreed, because the plan becomes a promise to the auditor. Do not dispute a finding inside the plan; if the notes suggest a finding is mistaken, list it separately under "Findings to discuss with the auditor". If anything is unclear in a finding, say so and note what needs clarifying rather than guessing at what the auditor meant.
Variables
- {{plan_owner}}
- Who owns the plan, for example "the site quality lead".
- {{recipient}}
- Who receives it, for example "the certification body's lead auditor" or "the health inspector".
- {{findings}}
- The findings exactly as written in the report, with reference numbers.
- {{cause_notes}}
- What you and the team know so far about why each finding happened.
- {{owners}}
- The people or roles who could own actions, one per line.
- {{response_requirements}}
- The deadline for your response and any form or template the auditor asked you to use.
Why it works
- What good looks like. Root causes name something in the process rather than a person, and "retrain staff" must come with a process change, which is what keeps findings from repeating.
- Format. Correction and corrective action are separate columns, so the plan shows both the immediate fix and what stops it happening again.
- If unsure. Unknown causes get questions for a short review, and owners and dates nobody has agreed stay "to assign", because the plan becomes a promise to the auditor.