I should have added a caveat in my previous post that i will not be in the least surprised if SQF auditors are reported to implement interpretations of text in the SQF Code which, IMHO, are (auditee) challengeable. (or other GFSI-recognised standards for that matter).
IMEX the classic audit repartee (assuming well-prepared) is - Show me where the Standard requires this ? (See below for a BRC "variant" which does comply with this "Rule" but such afai can see is not used in the SQF standard)
After all, you are the one paying for this auditorial priviledge.
@pooled, actually there is no specific mention of "mock" recall in the BRC7 Standard. You may be thinking of Traceability. Although IMO not deducable from the numbered text BRC7 contains -
●● Opening meeting
●● Production facility inspection
●● Document review
●● Traceability challenge
●● Review of production facility inspection
●● Final review of findings by auditor
●● Closing meeting – review audit findings and confirm any non-conformities
BRC7 also has -
The product recall and withdrawal procedures shall be tested, at least annually, in a way that ensures
their effective operation. Results of the test shall be retained and shall include timings of key activities.
The results of the test and of any actual recall shall be used to review the procedure and implement
improvements as necessary.
afai can see, no specific requirement to perform a challenge for the above in an audit unless it is "understood" to be a 100% certain consequence of the phrase "The procedure shall be capable of being operated at any time"(3.11.2). No idea if BRC can be that "subtle".
If auditors validate/notify auditees of their interpretation of such issues in advance (sufficient to enable auditee verification) of the audit, it's maybe fair enough. Otherwise, IMO, it becomes "fair game".