The legal traceability requirement and the way a business tests its procedure are not the same thing. Food businesses need systems that identify their food suppliers and the other businesses they supply. FSA and FSS guidance separately recommends reviewing traceability practices at least annually, or sooner after a significant change such as a new supplier.
That review frequency is best-practice guidance, not a universal legal timetable. Agree the scope, timing and pass criteria for your products and operation with the appropriate competent people and enforcement authority. The worksheet below concentrates on retrieval and record completeness before a real incident occurs.
For split or mixed lots, add the source-to-output drill to your review.
Before the clock starts
Define what this review can prove.
Scenario
Selected supplier lot, product, date range and business-customer delivery, with real or synthetic status made explicit.
People
Coordinator, record retrievers, food-safety decision owner, recorder and independent reviewer.
Sources
Systems, invoices, delivery records, labels, paper files and other evidence included or deliberately excluded.
Pass rule
Required fields, agreed retrieval time, quantity tolerance and the evidence needed to close a finding.
Record the retrieval time, but do not copy a generic minute target. The official guidance says information should be available on demand and recommends timely retrieval; it does not set one universal number for every business and scenario.
Reusable review log
Retrieve the evidence in both directions.
Copy these rows into your own controlled review record. For each line add: status, evidence reference, system or document, retrieval time, finding, owner and retest date. Use “not tested” when a stage is outside the agreed scope. An empty cell is not a pass.
| Direction | Evidence to retrieve | Question for the team | Review record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back | Supplier name and address | Which approved supplier supplied the selected food? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Back | Received product and quantity | What was received, in which unit, and how much? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Back | Transaction and delivery dates | Can the order, receipt and delivery evidence be connected? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Inside | Batch, lot or consignment identity | Which identifier follows the food through your records and labels? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Inside | Internal use and remaining stock | What was split, processed, dispatched, held, wasted or retained? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Inside | Source-to-output links | For each split or production batch, which actual source lots contributed to each recorded output? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Forward | Business-customer name and address | Which food businesses received the selected food or its outputs? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Forward | Supplied product, quantity and dates | What did each customer receive, how much and when? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Reverse | Customer delivery back to source | Starting from one delivery, can the team find the supplying lot? | Complete / review required / not tested |
| Control | Gap, owner and retest | Who owns each missing or conflicting record, and when will it be retested? | Complete / review required / not tested |
Scroll the worksheet sideways to review all four columns.
A two-direction exercise
Run the same evidence chain forwards and backwards.
- 01Review step
Choose a bounded scenario
Use a closed historical movement or clearly labelled synthetic records. Select one received lot and one business-customer delivery. Record the reviewer, start time, systems in scope and the evidence that will remain authoritative.
- 02Review step
Trace from supplier to customers
Begin with the supplier or receipt reference. Retrieve the required supplier, product, quantity and date information, follow the batch through any internal records, then identify the business customers supplied.
- 03Review step
Reverse the exercise
Start with a selected customer delivery and work back to the source record. Do not assume the first direction proves the second: search terms, document links and missing identifiers can fail differently in reverse.
- 04Review step
Reconcile and explain
Compare the received quantity with dispatched, remaining, processed, held, wasted or adjusted quantities using the units your business has agreed. Treat unexplained differences and unit conversions as findings, not rounding noise.
- 05Review step
Assign, correct and retest
Mark each line complete, review required or not tested. Give every gap an owner and evidence reference, preserve the original result and repeat the affected direction after correction.
Quantity sense-check
A complete list can still contain a quantity gap.
In this synthetic example, 100 kg is received. The records show 32 kg dispatched to Business Customer A, 28 kg to Business Customer B, 35 kg remaining in stock and 5 kg of recorded waste. The total reconciles to 100 kg.
This is an operational completeness check, not a universal legal mass-balance rule. Processing yields, catch-weight units, samples, returns, rework and other movements need the definitions and tolerances agreed for your operation.
Synthetic lot R-260914-01
- Received
- 100 kg
- Business Customer A
- 32 kg
- Business Customer B
- 28 kg
- Remaining stock
- 35 kg
- Recorded waste
- 5 kg
32 + 28 + 35 + 5 = 100 kg · Unexplained difference: 0 kg
When the lot changes
Test the links through a split or mixed production batch.
Supplier and customer lists can both be complete while the link between them is missing. FSA and FSS describe linking a product batch to its raw materials as internal traceability best practice. Use this additional drill where your operation splits, processes or combines lots. It is a review method, not a universal legal requirement for this exact record format.
In this fictional example, source A contributes 60 kg and source B contributes 40 kg to run R. The run produces output P1 at 70 kg and P2 at 30 kg. Customer C receives 50 kg from P1; 20 kg of P1 remains in stock. Customer D receives all 30 kg of P2. There are no other inputs, losses or movements in this illustration.
Copy the checkpoints into your controlled review record and replace every fictional reference with actual evidence. Record the system or document, retrieval time, complete / review required / not tested, finding, owner and retest date at each checkpoint. Record quantities in their actual units; do not infer kilograms from a case count without a recorded weight basis.
Scroll the drill sideways to see each evidence checkpoint.
| Checkpoint | Fictional record | Evidence to retrieve |
|---|---|---|
| Actual inputs | A: 60 kg; B: 40 kg → R | Both supplier receipts and actual consumption records. A recipe or planned allocation alone does not establish which lots were used. |
| Transformation | R → P1: 70 kg; P2: 30 kg | Run or split reference, date, source identities, output identities and their quantity basis. |
| Output destinations | P1 → C: 50 kg; stock: 20 kg. P2 → D: 30 kg | Lot-specific customer delivery records and a stock record, including any later movement or return. |
| Forward challenge | Start from A | Find R, both outputs, Customers C and D, and the 20 kg still in stock. Record any missing branch. |
| Reverse challenge | Start from Customer D’s delivery | Find P2, run R and both sources A and B, then their supplier records. Do not stop at the output batch code. |
Count the food once at each stage.
Inputs: 60 + 40 = 100 kg. Outputs: 70 + 30 = 100 kg. Final destinations: 50 + 20 + 30 = 100 kg. These are three views of the same food, not 300 kg of stock. Reconcile each stage separately and explain actual losses, additions, rework and unit changes where they occur.
A percentage cannot identify a pack.
A contributes 60% of the input weight. That does not prove which customer packs contain it or justify excluding Customer D. Record both outputs and both customers for investigation; the food-safety decision owner determines incident scope with the appropriate authority and supporting evidence. This drill is not a recall decision.
Close the review
Keep the result, including what did not pass.
- Preserve the original evidence references, timestamps and result before correcting a record.
- Separate a missing record from a slow search, conflicting identifiers and an unexplained quantity.
- Give each finding one owner, due date, corrective action and retest result.
- Repeat the review after a material process, supplier, system or product change where appropriate.
- Use the FSA incident tools and authority advice for a real withdrawal or recall, not this review log.
- Record exclusions clearly so a limited pass is not described as whole-operation assurance.
Primary sources used
Sources checked 12 October 2026. This worksheet interprets current official guidance into a review method. It is not an authority-approved form or legal advice. Use the FSA incident contacts, decision log, notification and business-to-business templates linked from the official guidance for a real incident.