Is it just me/my organisation that feels the permission model for CAPA has weaknesses?

ignoring static and focusing of dynamic security permissions…

we’ve always worked on the basis that:

1. the CAPA owner/creator has full edit permission for a record (along with any associated auditors),
2. the stage owners can only edit any stages they have been assigned as owners
3. and stage action owners can only edit those they own/are assigned.

that works fine except when the stage action owners need to attach evidence so that completion of the action can be independently verified. this fails as by default they don't have permission to attach files, and if given ‘add/edit attachments’ they also need the hieratical CAPA edit for that the work.

if they are given that permission, then it also allow them to also edit the stages and wider CAPA elements - which breaks the cascading/workflow type control model. 

incidentally they can also edit the ‘details’ part of an agreed action, as well as the ‘response’, which is very trusting. plus they can change the action ownership and target date, without any system approval from the stage or CAPA owner.

additionally can anyone explain the purpose of the stage description field, as it often confuses users into thinking this is where they record the agreed action.

any ideas or suggestions gratefully received, so that we can make the CAPA workflow process more robust; at present our workaround is that stage action owners have to email evidence to the stage or CAPA owners separately, so they can add it to the record for them…. not very efficient IMO?