Scampi’s operational advice is pretty good IMO.
IMEX blade usage, per se, eg monitoring/replacement of blades, is usually a haccp PRP program.
I would regard the cutting machine set-up control as a maintenance SOP which would, inter alia, minimize the risk of operational breakage. Not sure how you are categorizing in yr haccp plan.
Is yr metal detector (time-wise) actually monitoring the daily output from the cutting step ? (Depends on the flowchart).
The cutting step is not a (safety) control measure, it may generate a specific hazard – metal fragments.
I have no idea about meat (boneless?)/yr process but I have observed cutting frozen (deboned) fish blocks which also offer a good opportunity for snapped bandsaw blades. In this case, excessive saw breakages were particularly related to (a) machine speed, (b) blade quality, (c) machine set-up and (d) lack of tempering. A few users considered the tempering as a mental "CCP" although opinions varied as to the best setting. Depends on yr process of course.
I agree with scampi that some breakage is inevitable. The question is – is it excessive ? Presumably also related to yr volume of output / setup. If excessive might need to elevate to CCP the risk significance of the step to “assist” the MD/CCP. This would then demand a specific, relevant, control measure at the cutting point, eg observation (if meaningful).
Offhand, an average of once per month sounds not unusual if machine is in regular use. (most users auto-implement "observation" themselves IMEX, self-protection (!))
Not directly product related but you might find the hazard analysis, detailed PRPs, etc in this package of some interest –
PS - I suspect it is not unusual for machine blade replacement to escape inclusion in a blade monitoring form.
PPS - regarding blade quality, machine suppliers are often well clued-in to this aspect. They have to be. And vice-versa also !.