The same protocol, the same duration and the same depth as your real audit, with findings graded the way your certification body grades them.
A mock certification audit is a full rehearsal of a certification audit, carried out at the same protocol, the same duration and the same depth as the real one, before the certification body arrives. Findings are graded to the scheme's own system and the report is written in the format a certification body uses. The output is a readiness verdict and the time each open item needs to close.
A mock audit is only useful if it is uncomfortable. An audit run generously produces a short findings list and a false sense of readiness, and the cost of that lands at the real audit. Findings are raised as a certification body would raise them and presented at a closing meeting.
A full rehearsal on site, at full duration, with a predicted grade and a direct readiness verdict. Where the verdict is that you are not ready, you get it with enough notice to move the date.
Document based services cover the paperwork well. These six are the reason a mock audit is worth the visit.
Whether people do what the documents say. This is the single largest source of audit findings and it cannot be established from paperwork.
Fabrication, surfaces, drainage, sealing and the physical state of equipment. An auditor forms a view in the first fifteen minutes on site.
Product, personnel, waste and air movement between areas. Flow diagrams describe intention, and a walk shows what happens in practice.
How your team answers under questioning. Operators contradicting a procedure is a finding against the system, and it only surfaces in a real interview.
How long a request takes. Twenty minutes of searching reads as a system nobody operates, whatever the record eventually shows.
How findings are received and discussed. Businesses damage their own outcome at the closing meeting more often than they realise.
Run in the same sequence a certification body would follow, including the opening and closing meetings.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1. Opening meeting | Scope, method, timing, confidentiality and the audit plan, exactly as a certification body would run it. |
| 2. Document review | The documented system audited clause by clause, with records sampled and retrieval timed. |
| 3. Site tour | Fabrication, hygiene, zoning, flows, personnel practice and product handling across the areas in scope. |
| 4. Vertical audit | A single batch followed through every process step and every associated record, from intake to dispatch. |
| 5. Traceability exercise | A timed trace in both directions with mass balance reconciliation. |
| 6. Interviews | Operators, hygiene, engineering, goods in and dispatch, alongside the technical team. |
| 7. HACCP challenge | Hazard analysis, CCP determination, critical limits and validation evidence tested as an auditor would test them. |
| 8. Closing meeting | Findings presented and graded, with the readiness verdict given directly. |
These eight come up in the majority of mock audits, and almost none of them are visible in the documented system.
The system holds the current version and the copy on the wall is two revisions behind. Operators follow the wall.
A step done differently since a line change, a shift pattern change or a new starter, with the procedure never updated to match.
Damaged seals, worn surfaces, standing water and temporary repairs that became permanent. Familiar to your team and immediately visible to a visitor.
A door propped open, a shortcut between areas, equipment moved across a boundary. Rational on the day and a finding at audit.
Handwriting, ink and timing patterns showing a shift of monitoring entered at the end. Visible to an experienced auditor and serious in consequence.
An operator who monitors a CCP without knowing the limit, why it exists, or what to do when it is breached.
Segregation, changeover sequence and cleaning validation that hold in the procedure and slip during a busy shift.
Engineering contractors, hauliers and visitors working to different rules from your own staff, frequently unrecorded.
Written in certification body format, with the grading applied the way your scheme applies it.
| Element | What it holds |
|---|---|
| Findings register | Every finding with its clause reference, the objective evidence, and a grade applied to the scheme's own system. |
| Grading to your scheme | Findings graded as your certification body would grade them, so the counts mean what you think they mean. |
| Predicted outcome | The grade the audit would produce today, stated plainly. |
| Time to close | A realistic estimate for each finding, so the gap between today and the audit date is visible. |
| Readiness verdict | Whether the audit is winnable at your target grade, and what stands between you and it. |
| Interview observations | How your team performed under questioning, and where briefing is needed. |
| Site observations | Physical and practice issues, photographed where useful and prioritised. |
| Positive findings | Where practice exceeds the requirement, recorded, since management review benefits from both. |
Food businesses with a certification audit approaching and a system essentially complete. Where the system is still being built, a gap assessment costs less and answers the question you have.
A certification audit is booked and the outcome matters commercially.
You are certifying for the first time and nobody has been through it.
Your last audit produced findings you want caught earlier this time.
You are moving to a new standard or a higher grade target.
A customer has set a minimum grade as a condition of supply.
The technical team has changed since the last audit.
You are entering an unannounced audit programme.
A new site or line is in scope for the first time.
You confirm the standard, the issue, the scope your certification body has agreed, the audit duration and the grade you are targeting.
A plan is issued in advance so the right people are available, in the same form a certification body would issue one.
Run at full duration across documents, site, vertical audit, traceability, interviews and HACCP challenge.
Findings are presented and graded, and the readiness verdict is given directly to your team.
The findings register is issued in certification body format with grading, evidence and time to close for each item.
Findings are explained after delivery, so the register can be acted on without further interpretation.
The audit reports findings and predicts an outcome. Closing the findings is separate work, and an auditor who writes the corrective actions is no longer independent of them.
A mock audit is not a certification audit. It produces no certificate and carries no standing with your certification body.
Travel and time on site are included in the quote and stated before the work is agreed.
Every audit is quoted against your own scope, with travel included in the figure. A single shift site and a three shift operation across two buildings are very different pieces of work. These factors set the price.
These are the primary sources this work is built on. Where a market you sell into has its own requirement, that takes precedence and we assess against it.
It is a full rehearsal of your certification audit, run at the same protocol, duration and depth as the real one. Findings are graded to your scheme's own system and the report is written in certification body format. The purpose is to find what a real auditor would find, while there is still time to do something about it.
A gap assessment measures your documented system against a standard and is a planning exercise, usually carried out early. A mock audit rehearses the audit itself once the system is complete, and it tests practice, interviews and record retrieval alongside the documents. Gap assessment asks what is missing. A mock audit asks what an auditor would find.
Preparation closes gaps you already know about and assembles the evidence. A mock audit searches for the ones you do not know about. Businesses frequently do both, with the mock audit first and preparation used to close what it finds.
Yes, for a genuine one. The findings that matter most, practice against procedure, hygienic condition, zoning, interviews and record retrieval, cannot be established remotely. A document based review has value and it is a different service.
The same duration your certification body would allocate, which is calculated from site size, headcount, product range and process complexity. Running a shorter audit produces a shorter findings list and a false sense of readiness.
Far enough before the audit that findings can be closed and evidenced, and close enough that the system is essentially complete. Several weeks out is common. Running one the week before leaves no time to act on what it finds.
No. A mock audit that produces a short findings list because the auditor was generous costs you the grade at the real audit. Findings are raised as a certification body would raise them, graded the same way, and presented at a closing meeting.
You get that verdict directly, with the time each finding needs to close. That is frequently the most valuable output, because it lets you move the audit date with notice instead of taking a poor outcome on the day.
Where your scheme operates unannounced audits, the mock can be run at short notice to reflect it. The value of an unannounced mock is that it shows the site as it normally is, which is exactly what an unannounced certification audit will see.
The same people who would be available for the real audit. That means the technical team, production, engineering, hygiene, goods in and dispatch. An audit run with only the quality manager present tests half the system.
Yes. Multi site programmes are scoped as one project with a schedule across the sites. Comparing findings across sites is often the most useful output, because practice diverges more than most businesses expect.
A findings register with clause references, objective evidence and grades applied to your scheme's system, a predicted outcome, a realistic time to close for each finding, interview and site observations, and a direct readiness verdict.
Confi Food assigns work by subject. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and each piece goes to someone who works in that area. Every deliverable is reviewed internally by a second specialist before it reaches you.
Our technical positions are built from primary sources, meaning the legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the certification scheme owner or the relevant standards body. We set out how that works in our technical review and editorial policy, and what happens at each stage of an engagement in how Confi Food works.
An independent internal audit carried out to the requirements of your standard, satisfying the internal audit clause with someone genuinely independent of the work.
Read about Internal Food Safety Audit →Structured root cause analysis and corrective action planning for findings that need to close properly and stay closed.
Read about CAPA and Root Cause Analysis Support →Focused preparation in the weeks before a certification audit, covering evidence, records, and readiness of the people who will be interviewed.
Read about Certification Audit Preparation →Certificated course covering audit planning, evidence gathering and reporting.
View Certified Internal Audit Specialist →Expert BRCGS Food Safety consulting worldwide. Gap assessments, Issue 9 certification prep, mock audits, Grade AA support and ongoing compliance for food...
See BRCGS Food Safety Consulting →Tell us the standard, the audit date and the site, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the duration, the travel and the price.