Batch and lot traceability has gaps in internal genealogy
You can trace one step back and one step forward — but internal transformations (mixing, splitting, rework) are painful to reconstruct.
The problem
Who feels it most
QA, compliance officers, and production managers — especially during audits and recall exercises.
How common is this?
Very common in food and batch industries. FDA FSMA 204 emphasises faster traceability. EU food law requires 'one step back/one step forward' traceability.
Typical workaround today
Paper batch sheets, manual lot logs, and digging through binders during audits and recalls. Timed traceability exercises regularly fail the 4-hour expectation.
Why ERP / WMS doesn't solve it
ERP and WMS track lots at receiving and shipping, but internal transformations — mixing, splitting, rework, repack — are messy without shopfloor capture at the moment they happen.
Business impact
Recall scope and time-to-trace measured in hours instead of minutes
Overly broad recalls when you can't pinpoint affected lots — increasing cost and brand damage
Audit findings from incomplete internal genealogy documentation
Lot capture at batch start, genealogy graph at batch end
At batch or order start, operators scan or enter the raw material lots being consumed — a quick 'lot used' capture linked to the production order.
Optional quantity backflush by standard BOM, with quick-adjust for substitutions and partial batches.
At batch end, the finished goods lot is recorded (or auto-generated) and linked to all consumed material lots.
Genealogy graph shows the full chain: RM lots → production batch → FG lots → shipments — even if shipment data is uploaded later.
Recall/audit export generates a one-page report showing all affected lots, quantities, and downstream destinations.
Ready to solve this?
Book a demo and we'll show you exactly how Frontlink addresses this problem in your environment.