After yet another reminder – with a stern warning that I would not wait past the one-year-mark of my complaint – Accredia emailed its response today. Apparently, it has visited AJA Sertifikasi Indonesia (AJA) already and raised additional findings. (It neither informed me of said visit nor met to discuss the complaint!) Accredia notes it considers the complaints closed and it won’t answer to any further email concerning the complaint.

The salient points concerning my complaint in Accredia’s response:

• On adding my signature without my approval, downplayed by AJA as ‘a misunderstanding’, Accredia notes evidence that I sent to AJA that allowed it to ‘lift [my] signature from another document and add it where necessary’. As I was traveling through Papua at that time, I likely Whatsapp-ed that stopgap(!) solution for the Package Submission Checklist for Wananugraha Bimalestari. But that stopgap neither included any changes by AJA, nor allowed the same stopgap for future reports!
• On the remaining 11 documents that likely contain my signature without my approval, and any other documents that AJA put my signature on, Accredia does not elaborate. Perhaps it considers another 11 (or more) “misunderstandings” an acceptable practice?
• Regarding changes made to documents without my approval, Accredia does not elaborate. But I assume Accredia refers to it when it states that it issued some findings that should be addressed by AJA.

Accredia also takes issue that I didn’t publish its responses in complete form in earlier posts. After having checked my earlier citations against the complete emails once more, I believe no salient points were left out. I warmly invite Accredia to indicate what statements it wants me to include in my previous posts!

It remains a very convenient “misunderstanding” that a stopgap solution for one (1) draft report in November 2014 would allow for substantial changes and use of my signature – all without my explicit approval – in a dozen (or more) audit documents over a period of six months. Nonetheless, Accredia refers to actions (plural!) in 2015 and additional findings (read non-compliances; plural!) now. Clearly something was/is substantially awry at AJA, most likely the falsified findings, which may – but more likely may not – have been adequately addressed.

Hence, I reiterate – yet again – that I suspect significant discrepancies between my draft reports and AJA’s final reports, and that I never approved those final reports. I remain convinced that AJA falsified my findings (as certification decision maker 1) and my “signatures” on numerous audit documents. And I’m not convinced that Accredia has adequately verified the corrections needed, not in the least due to its lack of prowess in engaging with the complainant.