For Medical Device, IVDs, Combination Products

Pass the 21 CFR 820 CAPA review in 30 seconds.

Taktly grades your CAPA, root cause investigation, design-history file, and full DMAIC work against the exact CAPA-inadequacy patterns FDA cites in 483s under 21 CFR 820. The audit is free, your data stays in your tenant, and you walk away with a rewritten document a reviewer would actually approve.

21 CFR 820 (QSR)ISO 13485ISO 14971 (risk)MDR / IVDR (EU)21 CFR 803 (MDR)Class II / III devicesCombination productsIVDsImplantablesSingle-use devicesSterile barrier
or paste

Free · No signup · 30 seconds · Your data stays in your tenant

Free · No signup · 30 seconds · Your data stays in your tenant

FDA Warning Letter patterns

The exact patterns auditors cite — and Taktly flags before they ship.

Each card is a paraphrased pattern from a real public FDA action. Taktly's engine carries this corpus and runs your document against it on every audit. Hover a card to see the real citation.

Operator-error attributed as terminal root cause

483 likely

21 CFR 820.100(a)(2) requires investigation of the cause of nonconformities. FDA cites firms that close investigations at 'operator error' without identifying the design or procedural condition that allowed the error.

Medtronic (paraphrased) · FY2022

FDA Form 483 — observed during inspection

FDA observed that CAPA records concluded with 'operator did not follow procedure' without an analysis of whether the procedure design, training program, or workstation layout contributed. The agency required the firm to broaden investigations to the system level.

Training-only CAPA under QSR

483 likely

21 CFR 820.100(a)(3) requires identification of action(s) needed to correct and prevent recurrence of nonconforming product. FDA repeatedly cites firms whose only CAPA is retraining when engineering, procedural, or design controls were available.

Class II device manufacturer (paraphrased) · FY2023

FDA Warning Letter — QSR / CAPA inadequacy

FDA found that CAPAs for repeated nonconformances were limited to retraining the operators involved. The agency required CAPAs to include investigation of the system-level conditions and corrective action at a higher level on the hierarchy of controls.

'Continue to monitor' as effectiveness check

483 likely

21 CFR 820.100(a)(4) requires verification or validation of CAPA effectiveness. 'Monitor going forward' or 'review trend data' contains no closure criterion and is routinely cited as inadequate verification.

Surgical device manufacturer (paraphrased) · FY2022

FDA Warning Letter — CAPA effectiveness inadequate

FDA found multiple CAPAs closed with 'monitor for 6 months' as the effectiveness verification, with no defined acceptance criteria, sample size, or closure threshold. The agency required revised effectiveness plans with measurable closure criteria.

No documented prior-occurrence / recurrence search

WL cited

Under 21 CFR 820.100 and ISO 13485 Clause 8.5.2, the CAPA investigation must establish the extent of the nonconformance — including whether similar events have occurred. Without a prior-occurrence search, the CAPA scope cannot be defended.

IVD manufacturer (paraphrased) · FY2023

FDA Warning Letter — scope of investigation

FDA cited investigations that did not document a review of prior similar events. The agency required CAPAs to include searches of historical complaint, NCMR, and deviation data over a defined lookback window.

No MSA on subjective visual inspection

WL cited

Visual inspection is a subjective measurement system. Under design controls (21 CFR 820.30) and process validation (21 CFR 820.75), the measurement system must be qualified. Without an MSA, reject-rate data is not defensible.

Sterile barrier manufacturer (paraphrased) · FY2022

FDA Warning Letter — measurement system qualification

FDA found that visual-inspection reject rates were tracked without an attribute-agreement study on the inspectors. The agency required an MSA before the data could be used as a process performance metric or CAPA effectiveness check.

“CAPA inadequacy is the most-cited 483 category in this industry. The patterns aren't subtle: training-only corrective actions, operator-error root causes, effectiveness checks that don't measure anything. Taktly catches the exact phrases that put a finding on your inspection report.”

Medical Device · Before / After

Same project. Before Taktly, and after.

Three examples tuned to medical devicework. The left column is what teams actually write. The right column is what Taktly rewrites it to — using your project's real context, in practitioner voice.

Operator-error root cause on a CAPA

Before

Root cause: The operator did not follow the assembly work instruction at the sealing station, resulting in three nonconforming lots.

After Taktly

Root cause: The sealing-station work instruction permitted manual override of the dwell-time setpoint with no automated check, no second-operator verification, and no batch-record entry. The three nonconforming lots all show dwell-time variance > 2 σ below the validated setpoint, which the station's HMI did not flag. The procedural design — not the operator's judgment — is the system condition that produced the nonconformance.

Why the reviewer would push back: 21 CFR 820.100 requires identification of the cause of nonconformities. 'Operator did not follow procedure' is a behavior, not a cause — FDA inspectors consistently cite this language.

Training-only corrective action

Before

Corrective action: All operators on the sealing station have been retrained on the work instruction. Effectiveness will be verified by reviewing the next 60 days of inspection data.

After Taktly

Containment: Hold and re-inspect all in-process units from the past 30 days (owner: QA Mgr, due Day 5). Corrective: Replace the manual-override allowance with a software lockout requiring two-person QA sign-off (owner: Mfg Eng, due Day 30). Preventive: Add a dwell-time deviation alarm to the HMI with automated batch-record entry; deviations now route to QA in real time (owner: Mfg Eng, due Day 60). Training is paired with the system change. Effectiveness check: Re-measure sealing-station nonconformance rate over 60 consecutive batches (~n=12,000 units); success = rate < 0.1% sustained, with zero dwell-time deviations passing through. Closure: QA review at Day 90, auto-reopen if any deviation passes through.

Why the reviewer would push back: Training is the weakest control in the hierarchy. FDA cites training-only CAPAs as inadequate when engineering controls (alarm, lockout, automated check) were available.

Undefined target on a process improvement

Before

Goal: Bring sterile barrier seal-strength variation to acceptable levels and reduce inspector rework to industry standard.

After Taktly

Goal: Reduce sterile-barrier seal-strength CoV from 0.18 to ≤ 0.08 measured across n=30 samples per shift over 12 weeks. Inspector rework rate to drop from 4.2% (12-week baseline) to ≤ 1.5% sustained across 8 consecutive weeks. Closure decision at Week 14 QA review; reopen automatically if either metric regresses by > 10% in any week.

Why the reviewer would push back: FDA explicitly cites 'acceptable levels' and 'industry standard' as undefined targets in CAPA-effectiveness findings. The CAPA cannot be closed against a target that has no number attached.

Medical Device

Drop your project. Get a senior review in 30 seconds.

Free. No signup. Your data stays in your tenant. Taktly scores your document against the 21 CFR 820 (QSR) patterns above and hands you back a rewritten version you can keep working in.

Start the senior reviewStart a free project

Taktly for other industries

Pharma & BiotechFood Manufacturing