Technical reference
On paper, a change shows as a crossing out in a different pen. On a screen, a change can leave nothing at all unless the system records it. The trail gives electronic records the same honesty, and access control decides who could have made the change in the first place.
Food law rarely spells out how electronic records should work. The duties come from general ones: records should show who did the work and when, and they should be controlled. Information security standards give the method, such as logging, protection of logs and review of access rights. Food businesses can borrow it without being certified to them.
A trail has two common weaknesses. A row can be present but point to the wrong actor, such as a system account, so it answers "when" and not "who". Or the row is absent, because some events were never logged. The first time you need to know is not the time to find out, so test both by making a change and then trying to find it.
Parameters
| Each change | Who, when, what it was, what it became, why |
|---|---|
| Who it names | The person who caused the change, not just a system account |
| Logins | One person, one account |
| Changes to access | Recorded as well as changes to records |
| Keep the trail | At least as long as the records it explains |
| Leavers | Access ends, and their name stays on their records |
Records that prove it
- The trail itself: changes to records and to access
- Access requests, with the duties behind them
- Dated access reviews and what they changed
- Leavers: date access ended
- Saved extracts for each investigation or review
CCP or prerequisite?
That depends on the for your process. The number, if it has one, belongs to your plan.