Fresh supermarket cleaning supervisor - chemical and tool cross-zone audit: food-contact, sales-floor and restroom surfaces never share, every violation judged item by item

You are a cleaning auditor for a fresh-food supermarket. I have
just walked my store and recorded every cleaning chemical and
every tool I found, with where it is stored and what it is
actually used on. Audit each item for zone crossing, then rank
the violations and give corrective actions.

Context: we are a fresh-food supermarket with an in-store deli
prep room, a produce cutting station and a seafood counter. One
set of rags and mops doing both the restroom and food-contact
surfaces is an automatic-fail item on hygiene inspections. I
want an item-by-item verdict, not a cleaning policy.

Zone definitions (the audit uses only these three - do not
invent a fourth):
- Zone A, food-contact surfaces: anything that touches food or
  raw product - knives, cutting boards, scale platters, the
  produce cutting table, deli case interiors, produce crates,
  packing utensils
- Zone B, non-contact sales floor: floors, shelf exteriors,
  cooler door gaskets and exteriors, glass, entrance mats
- Zone C, restrooms and trash room: toilets, sinks, trash-room
  floor, greasy-water buckets

Data I will give you (recorded item by item on the walk):
- Chemical inventory: product name / the intended-use statement
  from the label, copied verbatim (including "no intended-use
  statement") / which zone and which surface I actually saw it
  used on
- Tool inventory: mops, rags, buckets, brushes, scrapers /
  storage location / who uses them in which zone (include what
  cleaners told me, even if unverifiable)

Verdict rules:
- Zone A surfaces may only be cleaned with a chemical whose
  label explicitly states suitability for food-contact surfaces
  or food-plant use. Label silent = "unverified", and the
  corrective action is to request a written suitability
  statement from the supplier - not to guess that it is
  probably fine
- A Zone C tool found stored anywhere on the sales floor or in
  a food-prep room = critical, regardless of "it has never
  actually touched the food counter" - judge by where the tool
  is stored, not by the user's stated intent
- One chemical appearing in two zones' usage records = cross
  use; judge it by the higher-risk zone it touched (a restroom
  product showing up on a Zone A record is a Zone A finding)
- No chemically compliant product found for any Zone A surface
  = systemic gap; list it separately

Output format:
- Main table: product or tool / type (chemical|tool) / zone of
  actual use / actual surface / verdict (compliant | cross use |
  stored in wrong zone | unverified | systemic gap) / one-line
  risk
- Critical findings first, with the ranking logic stated:
  Zone C tools on the sales floor > non-compliant chemical on a
  Zone A surface > unverified label on a Zone A surface > the
  rest
- Then at most 5 corrective actions, each a physical move:
  relocate, add color coding, pull an item, purchase which TYPE
  of product (type, never a brand) - and how the fix gets
  re-checked

Do not:
- Cite any standard number or issue any "complies with
  [standard code]" conclusion - the only admissible evidence is
  the product label verbatim plus my usage records; a silent
  label is unverified, full stop
- Recommend any brand or specific product
- Write "strengthen training" or "raise awareness" - every
  corrective action must be a physical relocation, labeling or
  removal; training-shaped actions are banned entirely
- Assume a storage location for any item I did not report -
  list it back to me as a question

Why it is written this way

Cleaning in a fresh-food supermarket differs from office cleaning by exactly one layer: food-contact surfaces. Same cleaner, same tools, restroom in the morning and deli-case glass an hour later - that is not a character flaw, it is what happens by default when no zoning exists. The audit's first cut splits surfaces into A/B/C because the pass marks differ completely: on Zone B floors the choice of chemical is mostly a cost question; the wrong bottle on a Zone A cutting board is a food-safety incident. Blended together, every audit comes back "cleanliness below standard" and lands on no specific bottle or tool.

Trusting only the label verbatim - and banning the model from citing standard numbers - is this audit's most important constraint. Faced with "can this bottle be used on the cutting board," a model's instinct is to produce an authoritative- sounding answer, and if it has none, to invent a standard reference. A fabricated compliance verdict in an audit report gets treated as a hall pass for a year. Pinning the verdict to "the label says food-contact or it does not" leaves the model three answers - yes, no, unverified - and the unverified corrective action ("get a written statement from the supplier") is something a person can do tomorrow morning. "Pending verification against national standards" is not.

Judging by storage location rather than stated intent is a rule with scars behind it. "That mop is stored here but only does the sales floor" - everyone at the audit says this, and it is often even true. But tools travel: today's sales-floor-only mop is in the prep room tomorrow. Being stored in the wrong place is itself a standing violation; downgrade it and the whole audit loses its authority.

Training is banned from the corrective actions because the most common failure mode of cleaning fixes is a meeting held, zoning emphasized, same bucket three days later. Actions land on physical objects - moved, tagged, pulled - precisely so a re-check is possible: walk the same list a week later and see at a glance whether things sit where they should.

Variables