Solution / Quality Claims & Review

A clear quality review starts with the finding

We review arrival concerns against the agreed product and the affected goods. Tell us what you found with the information available now; supporting photographs, measurements and other records can follow as the review develops.

Start the review without waiting for a complete file

We start with the reported condition and identify the order or batch through the discussion. Receiving photographs, carton marks and the time of the observation help establish the starting point. If there is a suspected food-safety concern, keeping the affected goods separate under their required storage condition supports assessment.

We help distinguish a sample from an obviously affected carton from a representative lot sample. Both can be useful: one describes the specific damage, while the other helps establish its distribution. Our quality inspection sampling guide explains that distinction and the importance of consistent methods.

Measure the concern on the agreed basis

We compare a reported defect with its agreed definition and measurement method. Broken fruit measured by weight is different from broken pieces counted individually. Sample preparation, carton positions and sample size also influence what the result can establish.

For example, 62 g of defined broken pieces in a 1,000 g sample gives a broken proportion of 6.2% by weight. This is a worked calculation. The approved defect definition and limit determine acceptance, while the sampling method establishes how the finding relates to the lot.

Review evidence from both sides

We bring the receiving observations together with the relevant supplier and shipment information. A size or grading concern calls for the approved specification and inspection basis; a seal or net-weight concern calls for packing information; a temperature concern calls for the cargo and event timeline.

The aim is to understand the affected scope and the most relevant control point. Carton identity, sample handling, loading evidence and receiving conditions are assessed together, with any missing information followed up during the discussion.

Connect the assessment to a practical decision

We discuss the observed finding, comparison standard and evidence for the cause before agreeing the action. Where results remain uncertain, a retained-sample comparison, retest or independent inspection can help resolve the specific question, with the method and arrangements agreed for the case.

Correction of the affected goods or record and prevention of recurrence are separate decisions. The commercial treatment is discussed with the confirmed finding and order terms, while the corrective action addresses the relevant grading, packing, label or handling control. Our QA/QC systems review guide explains this relationship.

Follow the action through to verification

We work through who handles the next step and the next update for the individual case. The review distinguishes an agreed disposition from its execution: a correction, replacement or other agreed treatment needs completion evidence.

For repeat supply, the follow-up focuses on the control that changed. A sizing concern leads back to grading and inspection; a label concern leads back to artwork and carton identity. Verification then checks the relevant result against the agreed standard and supports the closure discussion.