What is the difference between a correction and a corrective action?

A correction fixes the problem in front of you, such as reworking the bad parts. A corrective action removes the cause so it does not happen again (ISO 9000:2015 defines both, in 3.12.3 and 3.12.2). Containment protects the customer in the meantime. The form keeps the three apart.

Does ISO 9001 still require preventive action?

ISO 9001:2015 has no separate clause for preventive action; its Annex A.4 says risk-based thinking now covers it. Clause 10.2 still asks you to check whether the same nonconformity exists or could happen elsewhere, which is what the preventive row on this form records.

What is an escape cause?

The reason the defect was not caught before it reached the next step or the customer, as opposed to the occurrence cause, the reason it was made. In the example the occurrence was an unset driver and the escape was a torque audit that never ran on second shift. Each needs its own corrective action.

How long should you verify a corrective action before closing it?

Long enough for the problem to have come back if the fix had not worked, judged from how often it happened before. Set the target and the number of periods before the data comes in. The example used 6 weekly periods at 0 bad, in house and at the customer.

How is this different from the CAPA log and the 8D report?

This form is the full record of one request. The CAPA log is the list of all of them for the monthly review, and it links back to forms like this one. An 8D covers the same ground with a cross-functional team in eight disciplines; use it when a customer asks for one or the problem is serious enough to need a team.

Free template

Updated October 9, 2026

Corrective action request (CAPA) form

A corrective action request is the record of one problem being fixed at its cause: the problem stated as facts, containment to protect the customer, the causes found and confirmed, the actions that remove them, and data showing the problem has not come back. Correction (sorting or reworking the bad parts) and corrective action (removing the cause) are different things, and this form keeps them apart. It asks for two causes, why the defect was made (occurrence) and why it was not caught (escape), and it closes only when every period of the verification data is at target. The Excel version does the checking: share bad, containment totals, a cause with no corrective action or only training, late actions, documents still to update, a verdict from the verification data and a status in the header. Use it for one request; the CAPA log lists them all, and a customer who asks for an 8D gets an 8D.

Free to use: print it, copy it and edit it for your team. Enter your name and work email once to download.

Page 1 of the corrective action request form — Problem as factsContainment with quantitiesOccurrence and escape causesActions with control strengthDocuments to updateVerification by periodClosure checkWhich form to use

Filled-in Corrective action request (CAPA) form: loose screws on a bracket assembly — The same sheet filled in with the worked example (page 3 of the PDF, illustrative numbers). Open full size (opens the picture in a new tab)

When to use it

When to use a corrective action form

A customer complaint or returned part that needs a documented fix, and the customer has not asked for an 8D.
A repeat problem, a failed audit finding or a nonconformance that must not happen again.
An internal problem with a safety, quality or cost impact that needs proof the fix worked.
Not for one-off problems with an obvious cause: fix them and move on. Not for supplier defects: send a SCAR.

How to fill it in

1
State the problem as facts
What requirement was not met, where and how it was found, when, and how many bad out of how many. No cause and no name. The Excel works out the share bad and checks all four parts are there.
2
Contain it
Check suspect stock on the line, in the warehouse, in transit and at the customer. Write the quantity checked and found bad for each place; the totals tell you how far the problem reached.
3
Find both causes and confirm them
Why it happened (occurrence) and why it was not caught (escape). Confirm each with a test, data or a record before acting, and write how. A cause you have not confirmed is a guess.
4
Act on every cause
At least one corrective action per cause, with an owner and a date, and the strongest control you can: error-proof beats detect, detect beats a procedure, a procedure beats training. Add a preventive action for the same weakness elsewhere.
5
Update the documents
Tick which of the PFMEA, control plan, work instruction and training records need to change, and close each one. Without this the fix fades when people change.
6
Verify with data, then close
Before you start, set the bad allowed per period and how many periods you need. Record each period in house and at the customer. Close when the verdict says effective and every closure check says Yes.

Which form?

Which corrective action document do you need?

Five free templates cover corrective action. They overlap, so pick by the job in front of you.

Document	Use it when	Who fills it in
Corrective action request (this form)	One problem needs a documented fix, from containment to proof that it worked.	The owner of the process, with quality
CAPA log	You need every open and closed request in one list for the monthly review: age, late actions, checks due.	Quality manager
8D report	A customer asks for an 8D, or a serious or repeat problem needs a cross-functional team.	The 8D team leader
Supplier corrective action request (SCAR)	The cause is in a supplier's process. You raise it and the supplier answers.	You, then the supplier
Root cause analysis report	You need the full record of the analysis itself: the evidence, the causes ruled out, the 5 Whys and the fishbone.	The investigator or team

Corrective action request (this form)
Use it when
One problem needs a documented fix, from containment to proof that it worked.
Who fills it in
The owner of the process, with quality
CAPA log
Use it when
You need every open and closed request in one list for the monthly review: age, late actions, checks due.
Who fills it in
Quality manager
8D report
Use it when
A customer asks for an 8D, or a serious or repeat problem needs a cross-functional team.
Who fills it in
The 8D team leader
Supplier corrective action request (SCAR)
Use it when
The cause is in a supplier's process. You raise it and the supplier answers.
Who fills it in
You, then the supplier
Root cause analysis report
Use it when
You need the full record of the analysis itself: the evidence, the causes ruled out, the 5 Whys and the fishbone.
Who fills it in
The investigator or team

A filled-in example

Illustrative, not a benchmark

An example (illustrative): a customer finds loose screws on a bracket assembly. The PDF page 3 and the Excel Example sheet hold the same request, and the Excel works out every total below.

The example request, section by section

Problem
14 of 600 brackets with a screw below the 4.5 N·m minimum (2.3%), all second shift
Containment
2,400 checked: customer 600 (14 bad), finished stock 1,200 (6), line 600 (3). 23 found, 0.96%
Root causes
Occurrence: a replacement battery driver never set to the work instruction torque. Escape: torque audit on first shift only
Actions
Driver set and locked; a driver check at the start of each shift; the torque audit on every shift; 26 battery drivers checked, 2 reset
Verification
6 weeks at 0 bad: 450 audited, 10,800 delivered, 0 rejected. Ready to close after 49 days

Two causes, each with its own action: why the screws were loose (occurrence) and why it was not caught (escape). The request stayed open until the data showed the fix held.

Problem: 14 of 600 brackets in one delivery had a screw below the 4.5 N·m minimum torque, all built on second shift on two days in a row: 2.3% bad.
Containment: the customer's 600 sorted (14 bad), 1,200 in finished stock (6 bad) and 600 on the line (3 bad). 2,400 checked, 23 found, 0.96%.
Occurrence cause: after a breakdown, a battery driver replaced the corded one and was never set to the work instruction torque; 10 rundowns on a torque analyzer were all below 4.5 N·m. Escape cause: the torque audit ran on first shift only, confirmed from 3 months of audit records.
Actions: the 23 brackets reworked (correction); the driver set and locked (error-proof) and a driver check added to the start of each shift (procedure), both for the occurrence; the torque audit run on every shift (detect) for the escape; every battery driver in the plant checked, 26 checked and 2 reset (preventive).
Verification: target 0 bad a week for 6 weeks. 450 brackets audited with 0 below torque, and 10,800 delivered with 0 rejected.

All 5 actions were done on time, both causes had a corrective action, every document line was closed and all 6 weeks were at target, so the closure check reads Ready to close after 49 days. The sort stopped the complaints within two days; the request stayed open until the data showed the fix held.

Common mistakes

Closing at containment
Once the sorting stops the complaints, the pressure drops and the cause is never found. The Excel will not show Ready to close until the verification says effective.
No escape cause
If you only ask why it happened, the next defect gets out the same way. The closure check needs at least one verified escape cause with its own corrective action.
Human error as the root cause
People make mistakes when the process lets them. Ask what made the error possible, here a driver that could run at any setting, and fix that.
Retraining as the only action
Training is the weakest control. If every corrective action for a cause is training or a reminder, the Excel flags it: look for a change to the process, the fixture or the check.
Verifying the next day
One good day proves little. Decide the target and the number of periods before the data comes in, long enough for the problem to have come back if the fix had not worked.

Download the template

Free to use: print it, copy it and edit it for your team. Enter your name and work email once to download.

Run this template in LeanSuite

In LeanSuite operators raise a non-conformance at the line with photos, and a systemic issue becomes a CAPA: a project type with its own approval steps, root cause sections and action plan.

See it in a 45-minute demo

In the lean glossary

Free tools

Guides

Put it on the wall

Free 8D problem solving poster

FAQ