The corrective action that was stated in our hazard control plan is somehow just a scenario. The auditor said that it should be aligned with Clause 8.9.3 which I don't have idea how to do it. I have attached a sample. Kindly see and and will greatly appreciate your comment. Thanks a lot Sir.
Thks for the sample.
I deduce this is a cheese manufacturing process ?.
I don't use iso22000 so the following is somewhat speculative and other users are welcome to correct me.
TBH I also don't use a column format for corrective actions as in yr document since I find it too restrictive.
I have never encountered yr "scenario" terminology.
The standard has -
The organization shall establish and maintain documented information that specifies appropriate actions to identify and eliminate the cause of detected nonconformities, to prevent recurrence, and to return the process to control after a nonconformity is identified.
These actions shall include:
a) reviewing nonconformities identified by customer and/or consumer complaints and/or regulatory inspection reports;
b) reviewing trends in monitoring results that can indicate loss of control;
c) determining the cause(s) of nonconformities
d) determining and implementing actions to ensure that nonconformities do not recur;
e) documenting the results of corrective actions taken;
f) verifying corrective actions taken to ensure that they are effective.
The organization shall retain documented information on all corrective actions.
As I read it, the above text, in the event of a nonconformance, sort of covers "Immediate" control actions, root cause analysis, verification, review.
Currently yr document's Red no.1 implies an indirect answer to "e" (which I don't technically understand ). Your red "2" seems basically superfluous to me.
So IMO you are minimally lacking input for a, b, c, d, f
Just as an example, here is a (Corrective Action) section I extracted from elsewhere -
4.5.3. Ripening (CCP 3)
When parameters such as pH and temperature, checked during monitoring procedures are out of the defined critical limits, evaluation of the product microbiological safety must be conducted by sampling and application of microbiological techniques. Temperature is adjusted to the appropriate degree and maturation time may, if necessary, be prolonged. Finally, a thorough optical observation must take place. If optical observation and microbiological analysis reveals a danger to consumer health, the foodstuff has to be rejected.
As you can see, the above is a mixture of immediate actions and "evaluated/delayed" ones, ie (e,f). It does not cover RCA which IMO can only be initially included generically (or expanded generically), eg <<< RCA is carried out to answer "c,d" >>>> It obviously also does not cover (a,b) which (rightly or wrongly) IMEX tend to be retrospective (the amount of effort required for ongoing or prospective responses looks prodigious to me unless you only have 1-2 CCPs or a team.). I would suggest a "token" response, eg Nil if nothing relevant readily observed.
Hope the above is intelligible.
PS - Yr hazards column seems questionable, eg plate counts, yeast, generic E.coli are not specifically FS-related.