Auditors don’t audit your sensors. In a pest control audit, they audit the pest management program, and electronic monitoring data is one piece of the evidence for it. BRCGS, SQF and AIB all expect a current device map, a record of pest activity, trend review and documented corrective action, and their published texts allow those records to be electronic.
The hard questions start when the data doesn’t line up. A device ID that isn’t on the map. An alert with no closing note. A sensor that went quiet and nobody wrote down why.
Quick answer: Expect the auditor to test five things in your electronic records: a site map that matches every device ID, a log of pest activity, dated trend analysis, corrective actions closed with evidence, and how exceptions such as offline sensors were handled. BRCGS Issue 9 (clause 4.14.4), the SQF Food Manufacturing code and AIB’s 2022 public edition all allow electronic records. Whether the program works is still the auditor’s call.
In this article
- What do BRCGS, SQF and AIB require for pest control records?
- Will an auditor accept electronic pest monitoring records?
- What will the auditor ask about your device map?
- How should trend analysis from sensor data be presented?
- What does a corrective-action record need to show?
- How do you document offline sensors and other exceptions?
- How should you present sensor data in a pest control audit?
- Frequently asked questions
What do BRCGS, SQF and AIB require for pest control records?
The table maps the pest control clauses in BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 (still called BRC in plenty of plants), the SQF Food Safety Code for Food Manufacturing, and AIB International’s Consolidated Standards. The AIB row names topics, not clause numbers, because it draws on AIB’s 2022 public edition and current numbering may differ.
| Scheme | Clause or topic | What the text asks for | What your records should show |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRCGS Issue 9 | 4.14.4 | An up-to-date plan of the full site identifying devices; responsibilities, products used, observed activity and treatments | Every device ID in the platform appears on the current plan |
| BRCGS Issue 9 | 4.14.2 | Inspection frequency set by a documented risk assessment, reviewed after site changes or a significant pest issue | Why each sensor point was chosen |
| BRCGS Issue 9 | 4.14.9 | Records of inspections, proofing and hygiene recommendations, and actions taken | Recommendations with an owner and a closing date |
| SQF Food Manufacturing | 11.2.4.1 | Record sightings and trend activity; device identification, location, number and type on a site map; measure effectiveness | A map that separates sensor points from conventional ones |
| SQF Food Manufacturing | 11.2.4.2 | Contractor supplies a site map and a written report of findings and treatments | Technician findings stored next to the events they explain |
| AIB (2022 public edition) | Trend analysis; monitoring device documentation | Trend analysis, a current and accurate site map, service records for every device | A dated change log for sensors added, moved or retired |
| FDA | 21 CFR 117.35(c) | Pests not allowed in any area of a food plant; effective exclusion | No record format is set in the regulation text |
Check which edition you’re audited against. SQFI expects Edition 10 audits to begin January 2, 2027, pending GFSI benchmarking, with Edition 9 in use until then. The 11.2.4.1 items carry across both.
AIB has announced a 2027 standard that addresses electronically monitored devices. If you audit against AIB, download the current standard and read that requirement yourself.
Will an auditor accept electronic pest monitoring records?
On format, the texts leave little room for argument. BRCGS 4.14.4 says records “may be on paper (hard copy) or controlled on an electronic system.” SQF’s Edition 10 code says documentation “may be in electronic and/or hard copy form.” AIB’s 2022 edition allows hard copy or electronic files, available on request.
What gets tested is control of the record. BRCGS clause 3.3 asks that electronic records be:
- stored securely, with access limited to authorized people and amendments controlled
- backed up
- kept for at least the product’s shelf life plus 12 months, with any alteration authorized and the reason recorded
The GTO platform supports multiple users and authorized site access. That doesn’t answer 3.3 for your site on its own. If you have specific security, retention or record-control requirements, check Rook Pest’s current technical documentation against them before deployment. Also settle who may edit a technician’s closing note after the fact.
What will the auditor ask about your device map?
The map is the index to every electronic record, so expect it to be worked in both directions. The auditor picks a device ID off the dashboard and looks for it on the map. Then they pick a station on the map and ask for its history.
SQF 11.2.4.1 asks for device type on the map as well as location and number. Show which points carry a connected sensor and which are checked by hand, and mark the gateway. Rook treats documented device and gateway naming as a deployment step for the GTConnect gateway, and those names should match across the map, the platform and the service reports.
AIB’s 2022 edition adds a rule that catches pilots out: temporary devices must be mapped, and devices no longer needed must be accounted for and removed. Pilots move sensors. Each move is a map change.
The failure to watch for is a map revision date older than the last device change. Keep the map under version control, with a dated log of what moved, where, and who approved it.
How should trend analysis from sensor data be presented?
SQF 11.2.4.1 asks the program to “trend the frequency of pest activity” and measure its effectiveness. AIB’s 2022 edition gives trend analysis its own section, and its annual assessment uses at least 12 months of history plus how well past corrective actions worked.
Auditors read a trend review as a record of decisions, so a chart alone won’t carry it. A review that holds up states the period and zones covered, what activity did in each zone, what the team changed or deliberately left alone, and who signed off on what date.
Be careful with the word “trend.” A device that stopped reporting draws a falling line, so confirm communication status before calling a drop real. It helps to know the false positives and false negatives in sensor data your system can produce.
The scheme texts we read don’t fix a review frequency. Pick one you can keep and write it down.
What does a corrective-action record need to show?
BRCGS 4.14.8 requires immediate action to identify products at risk, with affected product going through the non-conforming product procedure. Under 4.14.9, completing contractor recommendations in a timely manner is the site’s responsibility. SQF 11.2.4.4 requires contaminated product to be disposed of and the source investigated and resolved, with records of each.
Expect a sample trace. The auditor picks one alert and asks you to walk it from notification to the technician’s finding, the action, the verification, and any change to the plan. Rehearse it with the full alert-to-closure workflow for HACCP and BRCGS programs.
The platform records events and sends notifications. People write the findings. In our view, an open alert with no closure note is the most visible gap an electronic record can have: the timestamp proves something happened, and the blank field shows nobody recorded what came next. A written technician response protocol is how you close it.
How do you document offline sensors and other exceptions?
A silent device can look exactly like a clean one. A missing check-in is a service exception, not proof that the location is quiet.
Log a sensor that misses check-ins, a gateway outage, a damaged or moved device, battery service and placement changes. Each record should say when the problem was detected, who owned it, what was done, when coverage came back, and whether a manual check covered the gap. We’d check that last field first.
AIB gives the log a second job. Its 2022 edition sets default inspection frequencies for exterior and interior devices, then allows the IPM program to define a different one where the facility can demonstrate consistent equipment performance. No other scheme passage we read ties check frequency to how reliably equipment performs.
Read it narrowly. It promises no change in visits and says nothing about sensors qualifying. If a site ever made that case, the exception log is where the evidence would start, and the facility, provider and auditor would decide whether it holds.
How should you present sensor data in a pest control audit?
Pest control audit checklist for electronic records
- The map revision matches the current device list, including sensors added, moved or retired.
- Every alert in the audit period has a finding and an action.
- Every exception has a documented resolution.
- Trend reviews are dated, attributed and record a decision.
- You can show who has access and how edits are controlled (BRCGS 3.3).
- An export for the requested period is ready, and the live system works on the day.
If you already hold a monthly records review before the audit, most of this list takes care of itself.
In the room
Lead with the program document and the map, then open the data. Offer a live look-up so the auditor can pick a device and see its history on the spot. Keep a static export in case the connection drops.
Watch your scope language. Sensors cover selected points, so “no events” means no reported events at those points. It never means no pests.
Agree beforehand who answers the data questions. Under BRCGS 4.14.9 and SQF 11.2.4, the facility owns the program and the pest management provider supports it. Platform reports make preparation faster. They can’t tell you what your auditor will accept, and neither can this article.
Frequently asked questions
What records do auditors check for pest control?
Usually a current device map, service reports, activity logs, trend analysis, corrective actions, pesticide documentation and contractor credentials. BRCGS 4.14.4 and SQF 11.2.4.1 and 11.2.4.2 list most of these directly, and AIB’s standards cover similar ground.
Does SQF allow electronic pest control records?
Yes. The Edition 10 code says documentation may be electronic, hard copy or both. The records still have to be retrievable when the auditor asks, so test your export before audit day.
Does AIB accept electronic pest monitoring records?
AIB’s 2022 public edition allows pest records as hard copy or electronic files available on request. AIB has announced a 2027 standard that addresses electronically monitored devices. Download the current standard from AIB and read it directly.
Is a pest control audit checklist enough to get through an audit?
No. A checklist helps you prepare and catch gaps early. The auditor judges whether the program is effective and whether the records hold together when traced.
Does FDA require a pest control map?
The regulation text itself does not specify one. 21 CFR 117.35(c) says pests must not be allowed in any area of a food plant and requires effective measures to exclude them, without prescribing a map or record format. Maps and trending come from certification schemes and customer requirements.
If your customers’ auditors have started asking about sensor data, talk with Rook Pest about the records they expect to see. We can help you plan a pilot around them.