# Applicable standard clause
**URL:** https://forum.esda.org/t/applicable-standard-clause/88
**Category:** General Discussion
**Created:** [August 8, 2020, 2:27am UTC](https://forum.esda.org/t/applicable-standard-clause/88 "2020-08-08T02:27:05Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@insneng](https://forum.esda.org/u/insneng)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2020, 2:27am UTC](https://forum.esda.org/t/applicable-standard-clause/88/1 "2020-08-08T02:27:05Z")
Good day experts!
Would like to seek some advise. If i have a nonconformity related to exceeding the limits on my controls. What is the more appropriate clause to use for calling out the nonconformity? Is it clause 7.4 or clause 8.3.
Thank you in advance!
Keep safe!
---
### Author:  [@JohnK](https://forum.esda.org/u/JohnK)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2020, 2:52am UTC](https://forum.esda.org/t/applicable-standard-clause/88/2 "2020-08-11T02:52:30Z")
I guess it would depend on the item that exceeded the limit. If, for example, it is a worksurface over the limit of 1x10\*9, then I would call out the 8.3, table 3 worksurfaces limits.
My thought is, you may have a compliance verification plan that is documented correctly but there is a failure in the limits then the compliance verification correctly found the failure. Thus the table where the limits are listed is where the non conformity exists.
I would call out 7.3 if the compliance verification plan had pass/fail limits that exceed the limits of table 3 for resistance to ground.
If the documentation called for the correct limits and the compliance verification plan was correct, then it would matter on how many items failed to determine how sever the issue is.
---
### Author:  [@insneng](https://forum.esda.org/u/insneng)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2020, 9:08am UTC](https://forum.esda.org/t/applicable-standard-clause/88/3 "2020-08-11T09:08:03Z")
I see.
Thank you very much for the clarification.