Whether your records prove what the system claims, can be completed accurately on the floor, and can be found when someone asks.
A recordkeeping system review assesses whether the records a food business keeps prove what the food safety system claims, whether they can be completed accurately in the conditions people work in, and whether they can be found when someone asks. Records are where certification audits are won and lost, because they are the only evidence that the system operated.
Most record failures are design failures. A blank asking for six entries at a step that allows time for two guarantees shortcuts, and the shortcut becomes the finding while the form that caused it goes unexamined.
Inventory, coverage, blank design, conventions, retention and retrieval assessed together, with redesigned forms delivered. On site, in any language, quoted on scope.
Eight qualities, each assessed against your records as they are completed on the day.
| Quality | What it means | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Completable | The blank can be filled in accurately at the moment the task happens, in the conditions it happens in. | A form requiring six entries at a step that allows time for two. |
| Contemporaneous | Completed at the time, by the person who did the work. | A shift of readings entered at the end, visible in handwriting, ink and spacing. |
| Complete | Every field filled, with a defined convention for fields that do not apply. | Blanks left empty, so nobody can tell whether the check failed or was skipped. |
| Attributable | Clear who recorded it and who checked it, with legible identification. | Initials nobody can match to a person, or a signature used by a whole shift. |
| Meaningful | Records the value, not a tick. A number can be trended, a tick cannot. | A checklist of ticks where the actual reading is what mattered. |
| Corrected properly | Errors struck through, initialled and dated, with the original still readable. | Overwritten figures and correction fluid, which read as concealment. |
| Retrievable | Found within the time a trace or an audit allows, by someone other than the author. | A record that exists and takes twenty minutes to locate. |
| Retained | Held for the period the standard and the shelf life require. | Records disposed of while the product they cover is still on the market. |
Eight failures, and the first is the most serious finding available in any audit.
A shift of monitoring entered at the end of the day. It is visible to an experienced auditor in handwriting, ink and spacing, and it is treated as falsification. The consequence is far more serious than the missing record it was meant to hide.
A form requiring detail the operator has no time or hands to provide. The design causes the failure, and the operator gets the finding.
A checklist confirming a check was done, with no reading recorded. Nothing can be trended, so a drift towards the limit is invisible until it is breached.
A blank space that could mean not applicable, not done, or not checked. Auditors read the least favourable interpretation.
Overwritten figures, correction fluid, or a page rewritten cleanly. The correct method is a single strike through, initialled and dated, with the original readable.
A countersignature confirming records were checked, with no statement of what the check found. It evidences that someone looked.
Records destroyed while covered product is still on the market, so a trace cannot be run and a complaint cannot be investigated.
Held across systems, drives, folders and paper files with no index. Twenty minutes of searching during an audit reads as a system nobody operates.
Blanks are redesigned around the conditions they will be completed in.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Record inventory | Every record the system relies on, with what it proves and who completes it. |
| Coverage gaps | Controls with no record behind them, and records nothing relies on. |
| Blank redesign | Forms rebuilt so they can be completed accurately in the conditions they are used. |
| Convention set | How to handle not applicable, corrections, and out of limit entries. |
| Attribution | Identification and countersigning arrangements that hold up at audit. |
| Retention schedule | Periods set against shelf life, standard requirements and legal duty. |
| Retrieval structure | Indexing so any record can be found quickly by someone other than the author. |
| Review design | Record review that states what was found instead of that it happened. |
Food manufacturers, processors, packers, storage operations and catering businesses. It suits sites where records are the recurring audit finding despite the work being done properly.
Record findings keep recurring despite the work being done.
Blanks cannot be completed accurately in the conditions.
Checklists are used where readings would allow trending.
Empty fields have no defined convention.
Corrections are made by overwriting.
Record review is a signature with no findings recorded.
Retention is shorter than shelf life.
Records take too long to find during an audit.
Every record the system relies on is listed with what it proves and who completes it.
Controls with no record behind them are identified, alongside records nothing relies on.
Blanks are watched being completed, because a form that fails does so in the conditions and not at a desk.
Completed records are sampled for completeness, attribution, corrections and signs of retrospective entry.
A record is requested cold and timed, by someone other than the person who keeps it.
Blanks, conventions, retention and review design are delivered, with an index for retrieval.
Completing your records. The review designs the system and your team operates it.
Electronic system selection or configuration. No commission or referral arrangement exists with any software supplier.
Where sampling suggests records have been completed retrospectively, you are told directly. That is a serious matter and it is not softened.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. A single line with a dozen record types and a three site operation on mixed paper and electronic systems 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 has to be completable in the conditions the task happens, completed at the time by the person who did the work, complete with a convention for fields that do not apply, attributable to a named person, meaningful enough to be trended, corrected properly where errors occur, retrievable quickly and retained for the required period.
It is visible to an experienced auditor through handwriting, ink and spacing, and it is treated as falsification. That carries far more serious consequences than the gap it was meant to hide, including loss of certification. Where a record was not kept, the honest entry is that it was not kept, with the corrective action recorded.
Values, wherever a value exists. A tick confirms a check happened. A number can be trended, which shows drift towards a limit before it is breached. Checklists have their place for presence and absence checks and should not replace readings.
A single strike through, initialled and dated, with the original entry still readable. Overwriting, correction fluid and rewriting a page cleanly all read as concealment even when nothing was concealed.
Use a defined convention, recorded in the procedure, such as a dash or the letters NA. An empty space is ambiguous between not applicable, not done and not checked, and auditors take the least favourable reading.
Long enough to cover product still on the market, which means at least shelf life plus a margin, and longer where your standard or local law requires. Records destroyed while covered product is still out there make a trace impossible.
Yes, and the same requirements apply. Entries need to be attributable, the time of entry needs to be captured, changes need an audit trail showing the original value, and access needs controlling. A spreadsheet anyone can edit with no history satisfies none of that.
A statement of what the review found. A countersignature confirming records were checked evidences that someone looked. A note that two out of limit readings were found, investigated and closed evidences a system working.
The person doing the work, at the time. Records completed by a supervisor from what they were told lose attributability and accuracy, and they are frequently the ones that turn out to be retrospective.
Usually because the blanks were designed by someone who does not perform the task. A form asking for six entries at a step that allows time for two guarantees shortcuts, and the design causes the failure while the operator receives the finding.
Fast enough for a trace within the time your standard sets, and fast enough that an audit request does not stall. Twenty minutes of searching reads as a system nobody operates, whatever the record eventually shows.
A record inventory, coverage gaps in both directions, redesigned blanks that can be completed in real conditions, a convention set for not applicable and corrections, attribution arrangements, a retention schedule, a retrieval structure and a record review design.
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.
Building the full documented system your standard requires, from policy through to record templates.
Read about Food Safety Documentation Development →Written procedures your people will follow, produced for the specific processes you run, never adapted from a template.
Read about SOP Development →Certificated courses covering HACCP, auditing, hygiene and the major standards.
View courses →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 →Expert ISO 22000 consulting worldwide. Gap assessments, FSMS design, internal audits, mock certification audits and ongoing compliance support for food businesses of...
See ISO 22000 Consulting →Expert FSMA consulting worldwide. Preventive Controls for Human Food, HARPC food safety plans, PCQI support, FSMA 204 traceability and FDA compliance for food businesses.
See FDA FSMA Consulting →Tell us the site, the record types and how they are kept, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.