CAPA Software
Investigations that hold up.

Coaches your investigators with comparable cases and root-cause checks. Only your people can approve or sign.

Book a DemoAll Modules
LLead AI Quality workspaceIllustrative workspace
CA-2026-2214 · Packaging

Seal integrity deviation

In investigation
Nadia PutriInvestigation owner
Source DEV-2026-084Stage D3 · Root cause
Problem statement

Three samples failed the seal integrity test on packaging line 02. The affected batch is on hold.

Root cause under review

Uneven sealing pressure traced to wear on the sealing jaw.

Pressure test.pdf Maintenance log
Evidence connected to the investigation
Elyndra · investigation coach

What allowed the sealing-jaw wear to go undetected during scheduled maintenance?

Lattice · comparable case
CA-2026-010287% similar

Same equipment. Related failure mode. See the previous corrective action.

One record, from first finding to final sign-off.Sample data throughout
Most developed workflowCorrective & Preventive Action

Why teams come
to us for this.

Most CAPA system software only stores records. Recurrence hides, and investigation quality depends on who is assigned.

  • Comparable history in view during every investigation
  • Cause, action and effectiveness evidence visibly linked
  • Sign-off preserved as a controlled human act

The capabilities that make
CAPA management software worth deploying.

A connected investigation. A clear next step.
People in control, all the way through.

01

CAPA investigation coaching

Asks clarifying questions and rejects vague answers, like an experienced quality engineer.

D3 / Root cause analysisDraft

A stronger question.
A more useful answer.

Initial observation

“The seal failed because of equipment wear.”

Elyndra · investigation coach

Which component failed, and why did the existing maintenance checks miss the wear?

Investigator’s revised answer

The sealing jaw was worn. Our maintenance checklist checked temperature settings, but did not include a jaw-wear inspection.

Specific cause and process gap identified
Nadia Putri
Edited and accepted
02

Comparable-case retrieval

See recurrence, precedent, and whether past actions actually held.

Historical recordClosed

CA-2026-0102

Seal integrity deviation · Line 01

Confirmed root cause

Sealing-jaw wear missed by the scheduled maintenance checks.

Corrective & preventive actions
  • Replace the worn sealing jaw
  • Add wear inspection to the maintenance SOP
Arif RahmanRecord owner
Effectiveness verified
Lattice match
87%Similarity99%Confidence
Illustrative match scores
Current investigationOpen

CA-2026-2214

Seal integrity deviation · Line 02

Cause under review

Uneven sealing pressure associated with sealing-jaw wear.

Relevant prior actions
  • Replace the worn sealing jaw
  • Add wear inspection to the maintenance SOP
Nadia PutriInvestigation owner
03

Root cause analysis checks

Every corrective action is checked against a confirmed root cause.

Connected sourceDeviation

Seal integrity failure

3 of 30 samples failed the leak test on packaging line 02.

DEV-2026-084
Intake / Gate questionsExample
Source context stays connected to every answer.
01 What happened, and what is affected?
Elyndra’s draft90% confidence

Seal integrity failures affect batch PKG-026 on packaging line 02. The batch has been placed on hold.

02 Does the action address the cause?
Confirmed causeWorn sealing jawLinked actionReplace + verify pressure
Investigator review required before CAPA creation
04

Gated 7D planning

From containment to verification and sign-off, with a gate at every step.

Select a stage to explore the flow
D3 / Root cause analysis

Evidence linked

Build the explanation from evidence. Keep asking until the cause is specific enough to act on.

Maintenance log and pressure test attached
Each stage has its own review gate.
05

Deviation and CAPA management in one engine

Deviations, audit findings and complaints share one engine, each with its own approval route.

Try changing the intake severity
Intake severity
Arif RahmanHead of Department
Approved
Maya SantosoHead of Quality
Approved
Critical deviationAdditional expertise required
Rina WijayaSubject-matter expert
Approved
Example route · configured around your approval process
06

Recorded human accountability

A named person accepts, edits or replaces every suggestion — and it is recorded.

CA-2026-2214 / Activity

Every decision leaves a trail.

Audit trail
Select an action to inspect the recorded decision.Scroll to see all columns
Sample CAPA activity. Select an action to view its recorded details.
Date & timeActorActionDecisionRecord
20 Jun 202617:50
Maya Santoso
ApprovedCA-2026-2214
20 Jun 202616:32
Nadia Putri
Edited & acceptedCA-2026-2214
20 Jun 202615:18
Arif Rahman
VerifiedCA-2026-2214
20 Jun 202614:06
Nadia Putri
LinkedDEV-2026-084
Recorded decisionApproved
Maya Santoso20 Jun 2026 · 17:50
Intake decision

Reviewed the source deviation and intake answers. Approved the CAPA intake for investigation.

Named human action

Built for

Quality investigatorQuality reviewerHead of QualitySubject-matter expert

The rest of the Quality & Manufacturing

Want CAPA running on your data?

Tell us the process or prediction you need. We'll map it to a module, a deployment and an honest timeline.

Bring your challenge.
Let’s find the right next step.

Request a Free Data Assessment

Leave your details and someone from the team will be in touch.

Interested inPick one or more

We'll only use this to reply about your enquiry.