Braised-food QC - the abnormal-product handling SOP: off odor, discoloration, foreign matter, damaged packaging - the five fixed steps of pull, isolate, retain, escalate, record

Here is a user need. Expand it into an archivable "Abnormal Product
Handling SOP" for a braised-food store, one to two A4 pages, for QC
and counter staff to execute.

Background (put it in "Scope"):
- Applies to on-sale braised products and ingredients: off odor,
  abnormal discoloration, foreign matter, damaged packaging,
  sliminess, and other sensory anomalies
- Trigger: anyone who spots it; handling lead: QC (shift lead acts
  when no QC is on)
- Judgment basis: the category's [retained reference sample /
  the day's normal batch] - compare color and smell against the
  reference, never against "how I feel about it"

The SOP has five steps (fixed order - no skipping, no reordering):

Step 1, Pull:
- The entire batch of the affected product comes off sale, not just
  the offending piece - whether the anomaly is individual or
  batch-wide only becomes knowable after the pull
- Actions: withdraw the whole batch, close the display slot, hang
  a "held - under review" card

Step 2, Isolate:
- Move into a dedicated isolation container/area with a red tag
  (product, batch, time found, finder), physically out of the
  normal product flow
- Straight into the trash or the write-off bin is forbidden - an
  abnormal product is evidence and the sample for review; destroy
  it and there is nothing left to judge

Step 3, Retain:
- Seal samples from the batch (including normal-looking pieces),
  labeled with batch and sealing time, counter-signed by two people
- For supplier-delivery anomalies, the batch sample gets sealed
  together with the delivery paperwork

Step 4, Escalate in tiers:
- Routine (sensory anomaly, single batch, none sold): QC handles,
  logged same day
- Elevated (part of the batch sold, or the same problem's second
  appearance this cycle): report to the store manager and assess
  notifying affected customers
- Critical (a customer reports feeling unwell after eating): this
  leaves the routine flow and starts the emergency path - preserve
  the customer's proof of purchase and full retained samples for
  the ticket's batch, report per the store's emergency procedure,
  cooperate honestly where medical care is involved. The key move
  at this tier is "preserve information," not "explain causes"

Step 5, Record:
- Four elements per entry: discovery (when, who, what anomaly),
  judgment (reference comparison result), disposition (rework /
  write-off / supplier return), and traceability (recorded until
  the batch zeroes out)
- Records roll up weekly; the same anomaly in the same category
  [2]+ times in a month escalates to a source investigation
  (process or supplier)

Attached: authority table (embed this table in the SOP)
| Disposition | Authority | Conditions |
| Rework (e.g., re-braise) | QC | Process-related defects only, reference-pass after rework; reworked product sells out same day |
| Markdown | QC + shift lead | Below the anomaly threshold; appearance issue only |
| Write-off and destroy | Shift lead | Rework confirmed impossible; destruction documented by photo or dual signature |
| Supplier return | QC + store manager | Delivery-batch defect; sealed sample and paperwork attached |

Expansion requirements:
- Adjust the authority table to the store's real roles; leave []
  blanks
- No "handle flexibly as circumstances require" - every branch has
  a named owner
- Give step 5's monthly rollup a table header (category / anomaly
  type / count / disposition / escalated yes-no)

Why it is written this way

The five-step order is the logic of an evidence chain, not of politeness: pull first (stop the risk spreading), isolate second (preserve the physical evidence), retain third (preserve a testable sample), escalate fourth (let whoever holds the authority decide with complete information), record last (make this incident the reference for the next one). The two most common store errors both happen before step two is reached: binning it on the spot (destroying the evidence - nothing physical remains for either a customer complaint or a supplier claim) and "leave it and see" (keeping the risk on the shelf). Banning the write-off bin as a first destination is written as an explicit order because it's the most convenient mistake in the book - throwing feels like "handling," so nobody feels wrong doing it.

"Compare against the reference, not against how I feel" is the most underrated line in the document. Sensory anomaly judgment is inherently subjective, and braised food runs heavy on numbing spices and strong aromas - personal taste interferes systematically (someone who dislikes Sichuan pepper always reads a pepper-heavy batch as "off"). The reference sample gives judgment an anchor and makes it reproducible across shifts and people. If the QC standard varies by who's on duty, the whole SOP's records lose comparability over time.

The "customer reports feeling unwell" lane is pulled out separately, with "preserve information, don't explain causes" in caps, because of the deadliest mismatch in these events: floor staff instinctively switch into explanation mode ("our process is fine," "it probably wasn't us") - and explanations at that moment have zero upside and pure downside, since one wrong sentence becomes a statement to face later. The correct sequence is preservation (receipt, batch, retained samples) plus honest cooperation, with causation left to links that have both the data and the standing. The authority table keeps rework rights with QC and strings three conditions onto them ("process defect + reference-pass after rework + same-day sellout") because rework is the only disposition that puts product back in front of customers - its bar must be the highest and its ownership the clearest.

Variables