Dietitian special-meal delivery checklist - allergy, therapeutic, and faith-based meals through six gates from order lock to signed handoff; any gate unmet, the meal does not ship

You are a dietitian at a contract-catering central
kitchen. I am turning special-meal management into a
verification checklist that runs from order to signed
handoff, for the packing and delivery crew to execute.
Special meals: allergy meals (egg / milk / gluten /
peanut / seafood, per the order), therapeutic meals
(low-sodium / low-fat / diabetes-friendly), faith-based
meals.

Design principle: every gate is a release condition. If
any gate has no completion record, that meal does not
ship. There is no "special case: send it first, complete
the paperwork after."

The six gates (for each gate output: what is checked /
who checks / what counts as passing):
1. Order lock: the special-meal roster closes [N] hours
   ahead, named to the individual (class or employee
   ID), allergens itemized. Standard: a vague "doesn't
   eat egg" does not count as locked; "egg allergy;
   egg-containing products (cakes, mayonnaise, etc.)
   excluded" does. Converting conversation into an
   exclusion scope is this gate's actual deliverable
2. Recipe verification: the special meal uses a
   substitute recipe with an ID number, reviewed and
   issued. A chef's on-the-spot improvisation does not
   pass. Items in [the plant's allergen register] must
   trace to recipe and ingredient logs
3. Production isolation: produced [in a separate time
   window / at a separate station], dedicated color-
   coded utensils and containers, work surface cleared
   twice before start (clear materials, clear tools)
4. Packing and labeling: unique meal-box number + meal
   type and allergen marking + its own tamper seal. A
   broken seal at handoff is rejected outright - there
   is no re-sealing; broken means remade
5. Handoff verification: count out against the roster,
   item by item, receiver signs. One extra or one short
   stops the line for reconciliation - "basically all
   handed out" does not pass
6. Retention sample: special meals sampled on the same
   terms as standard meals, labeled separately, never
   stored mixed with standard meals

Output format:
- Main table: six gates × (what / who / pass standard /
  record carrier)
- Appendix 1: the day's special-meal line-item template
  (name / type / allergens / box number / seal number /
  receiving signature)
- Appendix 2: the failure path for any unmet gate (who
  to call, where things stop, where the meal is
  quarantined), three lines per gate maximum

Constraints:
- No "strengthen staff training" - indirect actions are
  excluded; only checks verifiable on this meal, this
  shift
- No allergen inference beyond the order: allergens not
  written on the order are not speculatively excluded;
  allergens written on the order are excluded strictly
  per the stated scope
- Each gate's pass standard must be an observable result
  (seal intact, signature in the box), never "confirmed"

Why it is written this way

All six gates are release conditions, not inspection items, and the incident shape dictates that: once a mix-up happens, the meal is in the diner's hands and the recovery window is effectively zero - the child eats it on the spot. Post-hoc inspection can find the problem but cannot save the incident, so every gate is built as a pre-shipment lock. And the "ship first, paper later" exception needs to open only once before peak season makes it the norm - at which point the checklist's authority is gone.

The order gate explicitly separates "doesn't eat egg" from "egg allergy" because they are different classes of information: the first is a preference and negotiable; the second is medical information that sweeps in egg-containing products. Special-meal orders arrive layered through homeroom teachers and office admins, and allergies almost always reach the kitchen in conversational form - translating conversation into an exclusion scope (cakes, mayonnaise, the hidden carriers) is this gate's real deliverable. Skip the translation and the next five gates diligently defend the wrong scope.

Broken seal means rejection, re-sealing prohibited - that is evidence-chain logic. The seal's value is not physical sealing; it is the provability that the box was never opened between the central kitchen and the table. A re-applied seal destroys that proof with your own hands, and in a dispute you cannot demonstrate the meal left you intact. Remaking one meal costs far less than one unexplainable allergic reaction.

Banning "strengthen training" from the checklist protects the checklist. Training-type lines dilute the "verifiable on this meal" character - the person working the line needs hard gates they can tick, not correct platitudes. Training belongs in a different document, and the checklist survives precisely because it refuses to become that document.

Variables