Writing a nonconformity so the corrective action is obvious

A weak nonconformity says what was seen. A strong one says what was seen, which requirement it breaches, and why the evidence supports that — the statement, the requirement, the evidence. Get it wrong and you get the corrective action you asked for rather than the one you needed. "Operator had not signed the checklist" produces a reminder email. The same finding written against the clause on operational control, with three signed-in-advance checklists as evidence, produces a look at why the checklist is signed before the check. How do you get auditors to write the second kind?