A timed exercise on a real lot, in both directions, with the quantities reconciled and every break in the chain identified.
A mock recall is a timed exercise testing whether a business can account for a specific batch of product in both directions, using the records and people it would rely on in a real incident. It traces backwards to raw materials and suppliers, forwards to every customer who received product, and reconciles the quantities through mass balance. Certification standards require the exercise to be documented, timed and repeated.
Most businesses discover their weak point during an exercise, which is the purpose of running one. The trace itself usually completes. What fails is the mass balance, because a chain can look intact while the quantities refuse to add up, and unaccounted product means a real recall could not be closed.
A real lot, a real clock, both directions and a full mass balance. Delivered remotely or on site, in any language, quoted on scope.
Eight elements, each measured on the day. The right hand column is where each one typically breaks.
| Element | What is tested | Where it breaks |
|---|---|---|
| Backward trace | From finished product to every raw material, packaging component and supplier batch that went into it. | A component with no lot identity recorded at intake. |
| Forward trace | From a raw material lot to every finished batch it entered and every customer who received them. | One raw material lot spread across more batches than anyone expected. |
| Mass balance | Reconciliation of the quantity that entered against what was produced, dispatched, wasted and still held. | Numbers that do not add up, leaving product unaccounted for. |
| Timing | Whether the trace completes inside the period your standard sets. | A trace that finishes eventually, with no record of how long it took. |
| Record completeness | Whether each step in the chain has a legible, contemporaneous record supporting it. | A gap at a handover between systems or between shifts. |
| Lot coding logic | Whether the coding system supports the granularity the trace requires. | A date code that groups a whole day, widening any recall to a day's production. |
| Rework and blending | Whether material reintroduced into the process is tracked through to the batches it entered. | Rework recorded as a quantity with no lot identity attached. |
| Customer notification data | Whether contact details for affected customers are current and reachable. | Contact details correct when the account opened and not since. |
All three get called the same thing. They answer different questions.
| Exercise | What it is | What it tests | When it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mock recall | A timed exercise on a live lot, using real records under time pressure. | Tests whether the system works in practice. | Required by most standards at a defined frequency. |
| Traceability assessment | A review of the system itself, its coding logic, record structure and design. | Tests whether the system could work. | Useful before an exercise, or after one fails. |
| Real incident | An actual withdrawal or recall of affected product. | Tests everything at once, with consequences. | The exercise exists so this is not the first test. |
Eight failures that account for most of what goes wrong, with the first two accounting for a large share on their own.
The trace completes and the numbers do not add up. Product is unaccounted for, which means a real recall could not be closed. This is one of the most common failure and the least anticipated.
Material reintroduced into the process recorded as a weight and nothing else. It carries into batches nobody can now identify, which widens any recall to everything it might have touched.
Between systems, between shifts, between sites or between you and a third party storage provider. Each end of the handover has records and neither links to the other.
A code identifying a day or a shift instead of a batch. The trace works and the scope of any recall becomes far larger than the actual problem.
An exercise run without a clock, recorded as passed. Standards ask for the achieved time, and an untimed exercise evidences very little.
A backward trace to raw materials, with no forward trace to customers. Recall capability depends on the forward direction, and it is the one more often skipped.
A simple product, a short chain and a recent batch chosen because it would work. A real incident will not be considerate.
An exercise that identified a gap, was filed, and the gap is still there at the next one. Auditors read a repeated failure as a system that is not managed.
Written to satisfy the documented exercise your standard requires, so it goes straight into the file.
| Element | What it holds |
|---|---|
| Exercise record | The lot selected, the method, who took part and the conditions the exercise ran under. |
| Achieved timings | Time to complete each direction, measured against the requirement in your standard. |
| Mass balance reconciliation | Input against output, dispatch, waste and stock, with any discrepancy quantified. |
| Trace chain map | Every step from supplier to customer, with the record supporting each. |
| Gap register | Each break, delay or record failure, with the point of failure identified. |
| Lot coding assessment | Whether the coding system supports the granularity a real recall would need. |
| Corrective plan | Actions for every gap, covering records, coding and the procedure itself. |
| Audit ready report | Written so it satisfies the documented exercise your standard requires. |
Manufacturers, processors, packers, and storage and distribution operations subject to traceability requirements. It suits operations recording traceability across more than one system or partly on paper, which is where chains usually break.
Your standard requires a documented exercise at defined intervals.
You have never tested traceability under timed conditions.
Your last exercise passed and nobody measured the time or the mass balance.
You have changed system, site, coding or supplier since the last test.
An auditor has questioned your traceability records.
Rework is used and you cannot confirm it is tracked with lot identity.
Product moves through a third party storage or distribution provider.
You want to know your real recall capability before you ever need it.
You confirm the site, the product and the requirement in your standard. A lot is then selected to test the system genuinely.
The trace is initiated under timed conditions, using the records and the people you would rely on.
Both directions are followed through every step, with evidence captured as it is produced.
Input, output, dispatch, waste and stock are reconciled for the lot, and any discrepancy is quantified.
Timings, gaps, delays and record failures are recorded, with the point of failure identified in each case.
A plan is provided for every gap, covering records, coding and the procedure itself.
Implementing a traceability system, selecting software or redesigning lot coding. Where the exercise shows the system itself is the problem, a traceability system assessment is the service that follows.
Managing a live incident. Product recall support covers a real withdrawal or recall.
The exercise produces findings honestly. A comfortable lot would produce a comfortable result and evidence nothing.
Every exercise is quoted against its own scope. A single site with digital records and a three site chain running partly on paper 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.
A mock recall is a timed exercise testing whether a business can account for a specific batch of product in both directions, using the records and people it would rely on in a real incident. It traces backwards to raw materials and suppliers, forwards to customers, and reconciles quantities through mass balance.
It depends on your standard, and several major schemes set a limit commonly of four hours for a full trace. Customer contracts sometimes require faster. Your own standard states the figure that applies to you, and the exercise is timed against that figure, never a general rule.
Mass balance reconciles the quantity of a lot that entered against what was produced, dispatched, wasted and still held. It matters because a trace can look complete while the numbers fail to add up, which means product is unaccounted for. It is the element most exercises fail and auditors increasingly test it specifically.
Most standards require at least annually. Many businesses run one per major product category, and additionally after any significant change to the system, the site or the supplier base. Where a previous exercise failed, a repeat is expected once corrective actions are in place.
Yes, and remote delivery has an advantage. It forces the exercise to run on records, with no option of someone walking to a shelf to check. Where the concern is physical stock identification or labelling on the floor, on site delivery adds something.
Failing is a useful outcome and it is the reason for running one. The report records where and why the chain broke, and the corrective plan addresses it. A documented failure with corrective action is viewed considerably more favourably by auditors than an exercise that was never run properly.
Choosing a convenient lot produces a comfortable result and evidences little. A lot is selected to test the system genuinely, which usually means a product with a longer chain, rework involved, or wide distribution. A real incident will not be considerate about which batch it affects.
Food law generally requires one step back and one step forward as the minimum. Certification standards frequently expect recall capability tested to the point of customer notification, and where you supply direct to consumers the forward trace extends further.
Rework is where most trace chains break. Material reintroduced into the process carries into batches that look unrelated, and where rework is recorded as a weight with no lot identity, the link is lost. Any recall then has to widen to everything it might have touched.
A mock recall tests whether the system works, using a live lot under time pressure. A traceability assessment reviews the system itself, its coding logic and record structure, to establish whether it could work. Businesses that fail an exercise usually need the assessment next.
Yes, and multi site chains are where handover failures concentrate. Tracing across sites, or across a third party storage provider, tests the links that a single site exercise never touches.
An exercise record, achieved timings against your standard's requirement, a full mass balance reconciliation, a trace chain map, a gap register identifying each point of failure, a lot coding assessment and a corrective plan, written to satisfy the documented exercise your standard requires.
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 assessment of the traceability system itself, covering lot coding, record linkage and mass balance capability.
Read about Traceability System Assessment →Support during a live withdrawal or recall, covering decision making, notification, traceability and the closure record.
Read about Product Recall Support →An end to end review of food safety control across your supply chain, from raw material origin through to customer delivery.
Read about Supply Chain Food Safety Review →Certificated course covering incident decision making, notification and recovery.
View Certified Recall and Crisis Management Specialist →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 →Expert allergen management consulting worldwide. Allergen risk assessment, labelling compliance, cleaning validation, cross-contact controls and staff training for...
See Allergen Management Consulting →Expert BRCGS Storage and Distribution consulting worldwide. Issue 4 gap assessments, temperature control systems, allergen management, certification prep and mock...
See BRCGS Storage and Distribution Consulting →Tell us the site, the product range and the standard, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.