Extract data from non-conformance reports

A non-conformance report is the record a quality team opens the moment received goods fail inspection. Written under an ISO 9001 quality management system, and often structured around the eight disciplines of the 8D method, it captures what was wrong, how many units it touched, why it happened, and what will be done so it does not recur. Three people fill it in: the receiving inspector who catches the defect, the supplier quality engineer who owns the fix, and the quality manager who signs off the disposition and closes the report. Each report ties back to the purchase order and the goods receipt, so the problem is anchored to the shipment that carried it. Numbers and classifications carry the weight. On NCR-2026-0731, a lot of 500 aluminum housings received against purchase order PO-2026-1188 is inspected under an ISO 2859-1 sampling plan at AQL 1.0, inspection level II, and 32 units fail. Defects split by severity: 24 units show surface porosity beyond drawing AX-7714 Rev C, classed Major, and 8 units are dimensionally oversize, classed Minor, and the two entries sum to the 32 affected. Root cause is recorded as worn die venting, disposition is Return to Supplier, and a corrective action to refurbish the die is assigned with a due date of 2026-07-31. Containment, root cause, and preventive action stay separate steps under the 8D structure rather than collapsing into a single note. Talonic reads the report and returns the parties, the inspection references, the quantities inspected and affected, the severity, the root cause, and the disposition as fields, keeping the defect log and the corrective action log as tables. Affected quantities in the defect log are summed and checked against the header figure, so the 24 plus 8 units reconcile to the 32 reported. An NCR issued 2026-07-04 by Aeronex Components Inc against Baltic Precision Castings UAB loads into a quality management system with its CAPA items intact, so a supplier quality engineer works the corrective actions from fields rather than a scanned form. Finding and response return as written, and the extraction does not decide the disposition or judge the root cause.

What gets extracted from non-conformance reports

How extraction works for non-conformance reports

Non-conformance reports reach a quality team as inspection-department PDFs, QMS exports, and scanned receiving-dock forms, and the defect detail and the corrective actions sit in separate blocks on every template. Talonic classifies the report and maps it to the inspection schema in the Field Registry, whose fields follow ISO 9001 terminology, separating the identification of the shipment, the purchase order, the item, and the lot, from the finding and the response. Quantity inspected and quantity affected are typed as numbers, severity is read as Critical, Major, or Minor, and disposition is read as Rework, Scrap, Use-As-Is, or Return to Supplier. A defect log fills one table where each entry carries a description, a defect class, the units affected, and a disposition, and the affected counts are summed and checked against the header quantity. Corrective actions fill a second table aligned to the 8D method, each action carrying an owner, a target date, an actual date, and a status, so an open CAPA is legible without reading the narrative. Every value returns with a confidence score and a source-region pointer in conformance with DIN SPEC 91491, so a quality engineer can trace a rejected count back to the defect that caused it. Recording the report as written, the extraction does not decide the disposition or validate the root cause.

Sample extraction

A receiving-inspection NCR on a casting lot

{
  "document_number": "NCR-2026-0731",
  "document_date": "2026-07-04",
  "inspection_date": "2026-07-03",
  "receipt_date": "2026-07-02",
  "supplier.name": "Baltic Precision Castings UAB",
  "supplier.id": "SUP-2244",
  "buyer.name": "Aeronex Components Inc",
  "purchase_order_number": "PO-2026-1188",
  "item_inspected": "Aluminum pump housing",
  "item_identifier": "AX-7714, lot L-24-0619",
  "quantity_inspected": 500,
  "quantity_affected": 32,
  "description": "Surface porosity and dimensional deviation on machined housings received against PO-2026-1188",
  "severity_level": "Major",
  "root_cause": "Worn die venting on the supplier casting die, confirmed at 8D step D4",
  "corrective_action": "Refurbish casting die and add first-article re-inspection",
  "disposition": "Return to Supplier",
  "assigned_to": "K. Halvorsen, Supplier Quality Engineer",
  "due_date": "2026-07-31",
  "status": "Open",
  "inspector.name": "T. Ramos, Receiving Inspection",
  "specification": "Drawing AX-7714 Rev C; casting per ASTM B26",
  "sampling_plan": "ISO 2859-1, AQL 1.0, inspection level II",
  "defect_log": [
    {
      "defect_id": "D-1",
      "defect_description": "Surface porosity exceeding drawing limit",
      "defect_class": "Major",
      "quantity_affected": 24,
      "disposition": "Return to Supplier"
    },
    {
      "defect_id": "D-2",
      "defect_description": "Bore diameter oversize by 0.08 mm",
      "defect_class": "Minor",
      "quantity_affected": 8,
      "disposition": "Return to Supplier"
    }
  ],
  "corrective_action_log": [
    {
      "action_id": "CA-1",
      "action_description": "Contain and quarantine the 32 affected units",
      "assigned_to": "T. Ramos",
      "target_date": "2026-07-08",
      "actual_date": "2026-07-07",
      "status": "Completed"
    },
    {
      "action_id": "CA-2",
      "action_description": "Refurbish casting die and verify venting",
      "assigned_to": "K. Halvorsen",
      "target_date": "2026-07-31",
      "actual_date": null,
      "status": "In Progress"
    }
  ]
}

Frequently asked