Fictional. Step 11 of 12, Principle 6. Frequencies below are this example's choices, not requirements.
| Validation | Monitoring | Verification | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The question | Can this control work, if done properly? | Is it within the right now? | Is the plan being followed and working? |
| When | Before the plan starts, and again after a change | During production, batch by batch | After the plan starts, on an ongoing schedule |
| Who | team, with outside expertise as needed | The person doing the work | Someone other than the person who monitors and corrects |
| Cook, in this example | 's 75 °C for poultry. Heat trials with a full kettle to find the coolest point. | The cook probes 3 places in each batch. | The supervisor reviews records and watches a cook. |
| Cool, in this example | The is in law. Timed trials with a full chiller and the deepest pan, on the hottest day, confirm this kitchen can meet it. | The cook logs for each batch. | The supervisor compares the with the chiller's own record. |
| Reheat, in this example | 's 75 °C within 1 hour. Timed trials with a full oven and trays straight from the cool room. | The cook logs time out, time reached and the reading. | The supervisor reviews records and watches a reheat. |
| Shelf life, in this example | 5 days at 5 °C or below follows 's recommendation. Any longer would need evidence. | Date label checked daily, sensor record of cool room. | Tests on a sample at the end of shelf life, at an laboratory. |
says taken from outside guidance still need checking against your own operation and product, and that you should gather evidence in operation that control can be achieved consistently. So a limit found in a law or a guide is a start. It proves the limit is sound. It does not prove your can meet it with 40 kg in it.
Three batches, worst case
New Zealand's template asks for 3 consecutive passing batches when proving a method, and a redesign on any failure. This example uses the same idea for and reheating. Other places may ask for something different.Thermometers
cl 22 needs a device accurate to ±1 °C. recommends at least every 12 months, with ice and boiling water checks in between. This example checks weekly, and replaces or adjusts any probe more than 1 °C out.Weekly record review
Someone other than the cook checks the records are complete, match the and have when needed. A perfect, tidy record gets a second look.Monthly observation
Watch a cook, a cool and a reheat being done and probe alongside. Records show what was written down. Watching shows what is done.Testing
End-of-shelf-life samples and surface swabs, quarterly in this example, at an laboratory. Testing supports the plan but cannot replace it, because a sample tells you little about the rest of the batch.Full review each year
asks for a comprehensive review periodically or when things change, such as a reanalysis or audit, confirming all elements still work.| Review trigger | Example in this kitchen |
|---|---|
| Recipe or ingredient change | A new spice blend, a cream base instead of yoghurt, a new |
| Supplier change | A new chicken or spice supplier |
| Process or equipment change | New , bigger kettle, larger batch, vacuum packing, freezing |
| Shelf life or use change | Longer use-by, eating it cold, delivery, a care facility as a customer |
| Repeated or serious deviations | missed twice in a month |
| Complaint, illness or failed test | A suspected food poisoning report, a result from a swab |
| New science or law | A change in the Code or regulator guidance, or a affecting a similar product |
| New site or staff pattern | A new late shift, a new kitchen layout |
| Annual review | Even when nothing appears to have changed. also asks for review where a team concluded no CCPs were needed. |