Thanks for posting yr risk assessments.
I wondered if the, IMO, rather generic layout was also intended to be suitable for other standards in addition to BRC.
A few comments -
(1) There seems a little confusion here and there in the excels regarding the terms hazard and risk. Not unusual.
(2) The use of the word "significant" as a matrix severity level (tabs 1/2) is IMEX unusual.
(3) The BRC risk matrix (tab1) does not seem to directly correlate to any of the matrix examples (tab2) but all selections are anyway basically a matter of opinion (risk aversiveness) although the minimal criterion of "quite likely to occur" is, I think, nowadays fairly standard in haccp texts.
(4) It's partly a matter of opinion but more than 3 risk "segments" in a matrix tends to be regarded as statistically questionable.
(5) IMEX it is unusual to present a risk assessment without a column for hazards. I would have thought it simpler (less columns-less verbiage) in tab3/4 to use a routine hazard analysis format / BCPA etc.
(6) Personally i would hv replaced "Purchasing" by "Receiving" in tab 3 etc but only my opinion.
(7) I note that there is no raw material specific "hazard analysis" since all the terminologies are generic, eg "microbial contamination". This is not sufficient IMO but was obviously OK for yr auditor.
(8) The "Ingredients" (tabs 4/5) are anonymous.
(9) The possibility of microbial contamination in raw material/ingredients appears to textually exclude pathogens. This seems illogical ?
(10) There seems to be a need for some x-links in yr Post 4 "risk analysis" excels to where the actual validatory material is sourced, eg the VA analysis in Post 6.
(11) As noted in Post 2 afaik BRC only consider 2 classes of supplier grading, ie Low / not Low. Maybe BRC-relevant to tab6
(12) I note that the Supplier Rating (tab6) has no direct input regarding the specific risk level of the raw material/inputs (eg the haccp-evaluated risk). IMO this is highly questionable.
(13) I noted that the VA result circled in tab5 is not fully in agreement with the text in tab4 ? Good to know that visual detection is so efficient.
I like the idea of the matrix-type format for displaying the Supplier Rating but I'm a little dubious as to the numbers/interpretation.
I guess it's worth repeating that BRC does not explicitly require Supplier Ratings but there is some implied demand from the text. Typical BRC.
Thks again for posting. Much appreciated.