Corrective-action record
The action owner records implementation.
Bring the specialist the verification task and action evidence.
Corrective action and effectiveness review
See whether corrective actions address the original problem
Keep the finding, completed action and follow-up evidence together. SkillSmith helps reviewers distinguish supported results from actions needing correction and cases still awaiting assessment.
Define the check Review the evidence Choose the next action
Roles, playbooks and a practical launch plan for your team.
Set the expected result, accountable reviewer and conditions that call for a review.
Pay only when you see results
Agree the outcome for your first workflow with our team.
Trusted by leading organizations
“SkillSmith has always been very professional and responsive throughout the entire process and an absolute pleasure to work with.”
Paul HildebrandDirector of HSE/DOT, Jones Power
The effectiveness decision
A completed action still needs a reviewed result
The action owner can show that a change was made. The reviewer needs different evidence: what happened when the affected work was checked again, and whether it met the agreed criterion.
Connected work across your team
Follow the action through its effectiveness decision
Agree what the reviewer needs to check, retain the action evidence and assess the later result. Give returned work and missing evidence a specific owner and next step.
Action owner and specialist
Name the result that would support acceptance
Start with the original finding. For the recurring obstruction example, agree the affected route, the work conditions to observe and the follow-up period. Name the reviewer and the evidence needed to judge the result.
- Original finding and affected work
- The criterion and follow-up conditions
- Named reviewer and required evidence
Action owner
Show what changed and retain its evidence
The owner records the completed action and its supporting evidence. The corrective-action method then brings the verification task to the specialist. The implementation record gives the reviewer a starting point for the follow-up check.
- Completed action and original finding
- What changed and when
- Evidence for the specialist’s review
Specialist reviewer
Compare the follow-up observation with the criterion
The specialist checks the agreed conditions and records the decision. In the recurrence example, the obstruction is found again, so the reviewer records that evidence and requests correction. A satisfactory check is accepted only for the conditions actually reviewed.
- The actual follow-up observation
- Its relationship to the agreed criterion
- The decision and reason
SkillSmith
Reviewer → action owner
Keep returned and unassessed work distinct
When the issue needs correction, the manager assigns the next action with the reviewer’s evidence. When the check has not happened or a source record is missing, keep the case unassessed and name who will obtain it. Review each case on its own evidence.
- An owner for further correction
- An owner for a missing check or source
- A further review when evidence is ready
SkillSmith
Connected information and agent support
Keep the finding and the review basis in view
Connect implementation to specialist verification and its evidence. In Real Metric’s review views, examine assessed outcomes, observed process gaps and unknown cases separately.
Your work context
Your finding and action
Keep the original issue and action evidence available for review.
Your verification decision
The specialist compares the follow-up observation with the agreed criterion.
Your reviewed evidence
Keep a checked result, further correction and missing evidence distinct.
We bring the relevant
context into your work
ResourcesPlaybooks
My Tasks
Your next task, ready to act on
- The job context
- Your approved instructions
- A clear response
Available to the right team member
Verification record
The specialist records the reviewed result.
Accept the evidence, request correction or retain the information gap.
Observed event evidence
An event needs review or lacks supporting evidence.
Inspect the source and choose the appropriate evidence-review follow-up.
Real Metric
“Inspect events and source evidence”
Review observed events with assessed results, process gaps and missing evidence. Use the underlying records to decide which follow-up is needed.
Keep the conversation moving
Download our corrective-effectiveness product sheet
Share the review method with the people who own corrective actions and assess their results.
- Implementation and effectiveness decisions
- Supported, returned and unassessed examples
- Roles, first-use plan and demo agenda
PDF · 6 pages
Our delivery approach
Start with a finding that needs a meaningful follow-up
Bring an original finding and the action taken. We’ll help your owner and reviewer make the expected evidence and next decisions concrete before you expand the method.
- 01
Choose the problem and criterion
Select a real finding and agree the result, relevant work conditions and evidence the reviewer needs. Name the action owner and specialist.
What we prepare togetherAn explicit basis for the effectiveness decision.
- 02
Prepare implementation and review
Keep the original finding with the action record. Prepare the specialist’s verification task and decide who handles an incomplete or unsatisfactory result.
What we prepare togetherA connected action and review method with clear responsibilities.
- 03
Review different result states
Walk through a satisfactory check, a recurring problem and an unassessed case. Inspect each source record and agree the next action before using any summary.
What we prepare togetherA reviewed first use that preserves uncertainty and further work.
Talk with our team
We are here to help
Bring us the work your team wants to improve. We’ll walk through your instructions, responsibilities and review criteria, then show how our platform can support that work.
Build on the findings and evidence you already have
We help connect the original problem, action and review evidence. Your specialist decides whether the action was effective, while returned work and missing evidence remain visible for follow-up.
Your original findingKeep the problem and its operating context available for the reviewer.
Your completed actionRetain what changed and the implementation evidence.
Your specialist’s judgmentAgree the follow-up criterion and record the supported decision.
Rohit Singh
VP of Strategic Partnerships
Connecting your workflows with the systems and partners you rely on.
Brent Jackson
Director of Customer Success
Helping your team turn procedures into practical learning and task completion.
Your questions
Practical questions about corrective-action effectiveness
What does action completion tell us?
It records that the owner carried out the action and supplied the requested evidence. The specialist then assesses the follow-up result against the agreed criterion before recording an effectiveness decision.
What if the problem comes back?
Record the recurrence and the conditions in which it was observed. The reviewer requests correction, and the manager gives the next action an owner. Keep the original evidence available for the further review.
How should we treat a missing review?
Keep the case unassessed and name the person who will complete the check or obtain the missing source. A missing assessment stays separate from both an accepted result and a finding that needs correction.
Which results should we compare?
Compare results with the same defined scope, criterion and relevant work conditions. Show which cases were assessed and which remain unknown, then inspect the underlying records before drawing a wider conclusion.