Inspection readiness depends on records that match the work

What CAP's deficiency guidance shows

CAP's 2025 common-checklist-deficiency document, revised in March 2026, identifies problems involving procedure control, competency documentation, and instrument comparability. Examples include changed practice without updated procedures, conflicting document versions, and missing supporting competency records.

This is evidence of practical inspection problems, not a claim that every laboratory has the same deficiencies. A review should use the client's applicable current requirements, its actual testing activity, and authorized access to its accreditation materials.

Check the connection between the record and the process

Start with a defined test system or department. Compare the controlled SOP, relevant study evidence, staff training, competency record, and how the work is actually performed. A document should identify the decision, its owner, and where the supporting evidence can be retrieved.

An instrument comparison or linearity graph is part of that record, not its entire conclusion. Review study design, specimen or material suitability, range covered, limits selected, exceptions, and approval. Do not assume one dataset automatically satisfies another study's purpose without checking those conditions.

• Are the procedures current and available during routine work and downtime?
• Can each assessed competency element be traced to supporting evidence?
• Are the test systems, primary methods, and backup methods appropriately identified?
• Can a reviewer follow the findings through to the authorized decision?

Make readiness an ongoing workstream

A director needs to know which gaps remain, their risk, who owns the correction, and whether corporate resources are needed. An executive needs the same information summarized consistently across participating sites, while preserving each site's local approval and requirements.

AssayIQ can provide a scoped readiness review, an evidence map, a prioritized action register, and recurring follow-up through its Quality Partner program. This supports preparation and improvement; it is not CAP or COLA accreditation, an endorsement by those organizations, or an inspection guarantee.