The IFS assessment cycle, kept apart from the running implementation status
The implementation status describes where the operation stands today. An IFS audit is a snapshot with its own vocabulary and its own scoring. Mixing the two would mean a later improvement retroactively changes a closed audit result. The module therefore keeps them apart: the IFS Food v8 catalogue with 5 chapters, 68 sections and 232 requirements, 10 of them KO, as OSCAL alongside the platform’s other catalogues, and the audit with an assessment per requirement whose score and KO property are fixed on the assessment line. The short titles are own wording; the text of the requirements stays with IFS.
Whether a requirement was a KO requirement at the time of assessment decides over 50 percent of the total score. That statement must not change when a new version of the standard is loaded later. So KO and score sit on the line, not looked up in the catalogue.
The Codex CCP decision tree asks four questions in a fixed order. Checking Q3 first classifies as non-critical a step that was expressly set up to control the hazard. The module delivers a proposal; the classification is made by the HACCP team, and a deviation requires a reason.
Monitoring of CCPs is requirement 2.3.9.1 and thus one of the ten KO requirements. The overview shows exactly that gap instead of merely counting. Food defence and food fraud share one structure with separate numbering, because TACCP asks about intent and VACCP about adulteration.
An IFS audit whose result stays as it was on the audit day, and an implementation status that moves on independently.
Schedule a no-obligation demo – we will show you the module with your own use cases.
