1. Two different interpretations around 7.2.1 clause
(1) Troubles happened at an assessment
At the Company N (manufacturer) assessment about 7.2.1 clause, an assessor pointed out that the company did not determined items which may contribute to make sure to identify customers’ requirements before the Company confronts them.
I think it is a funny interpretation of 7.2.1, because what the clause requires for an organization is to understand its customers’ requirements, not its way of understanding. It is up to each organization.
Therefore the assessor should have said that there was no nonconformity found but as his personal advice preparations of confirmation lists might be an effective way to determine customers’ requirements.

(2) Example of Company F
Company F is a subcontractor of Company Y. It has the following production preparation sheet for determine product requirements of Company Y.

Company F checks a new customer’s requirements according to determined items and enters in the results of the related columns. The sheet may be an effective tool to understand its customer’s requirements.

2. Application of 7.2.1 clause to KANBAN?
Company K manufactures car pars. When a customer orders new parts, Company K negotiates with the customers, with making samples and determines its requirements.
After then individual customer’s order comes by KANBAN. At this stage no determination activities that required in 7.2.1 clause is unnecessary.
Therefore the company does not apply 7.2.1 clause to KANBAN.
But at the assessment an assessor showed unsatisfactory comment for the application.
The assessor has backgrounds of working in a construction company. Therefore he has no adequate understanding for mass repeated production such as car production.