SOPs & Training
The procedure people follow. Not the one in the binder.
Versioned procedures with dated sign-offs — so the training record writes itself and the audit stops being a fire drill.
Every farm has SOPs. They live in a binder, or a shared drive, at whatever revision somebody last printed. The auditor does not ask whether you have them. He asks who was trained on the current version, and when — and that is the question that turns into a week of work.
Here a procedure is a versioned document. Change it and it becomes a new version; the old one does not vanish, so you can still show what the procedure was on the day something happened. The people who need to be on the current version sign off on it, and that sign-off is dated and attributed to a person.
Which means the training record is not a second artefact somebody has to maintain in parallel. It is the sign-off log. Who is trained on the current sanitation SOP stops being a project and becomes a question you answer in the app, in front of the auditor.
Questions
The things people actually ask.
Do sign-offs really count as training records?
That is what they are for. A sign-off is a dated, attributed acknowledgment of a specific version of a specific procedure — which is precisely what an auditor is asking for when they ask to see training records.
What happens when we revise an SOP?
It becomes a new version and goes back out for sign-off. The previous version is retained, because the question in an audit is usually about what the procedure was last quarter, not what it is this morning.
Is this enough for a food-safety audit on its own?
No. SOPs and sign-offs are one half of what an audit wants; the unbroken lot chain in Traceability is the other. The point is that both come out of the same system rather than two.
See SOPs & Training on a real farm.
We'll walk an order all the way through to its margin — on live farm data, not a slide.