Thks for yr Post. I have attempted to spell out my interpretations below.
I assume the BRC Certification references the specific item(s) whose manufacturing "process" was audited (= HACCP Scope).
I also assume (not my area) that all individual species ("items") within "cartons"/"bags"/'labels" etc are not necessarily created equal, ie some are ("quality") restricted to non-direct contact, others are bi-functional.
The (implicit/explicit) differences between the Standards for Basic/High categories appear to be more than just "Hygienic", eg both hazard analyses (as per usual) require a nomination of "intended use". I assume this input should correlate with the chosen category/BRC Packaging Decision Tree. i aslo assume the choice may have implications regarding the details of the submitted Product Specification (?).
i can envisage (at least) 3 options/scenarios for a specific packaging "species"/item (packaging is not my product area so pls correct me if unrealistic) -
(a) If an item is usable (and may be required) for both direct and non-direct contact i can understand the reason to select the intended use which matches "high".
(b) If an item is intrinsically usable only for non-direct contact, it would seem IMO "illogical" (and to an auditor?) to select an intended use to match "high".
(c) If an item is usable for direct/non-direct but only ever intended to use for latter, I get it that some Companies may like to "overkill" for some grandiose reason and go for high (probably over-riding the QA Mngr).
Regarding OP, I get the impression that the product under present discussion falls into (b) ?. But perhaps not.
I hope the above makes sense.