Book a meeting Find a partner Pest controller?Go to the PCO area → Menu

Compliance

Audit-proof documentation: what holds up when the auditor asks questionsAudit-proof documentation

Documentation is audit-proof when it answers three questions without hesitation: What happened, who responded and when, and how do we know? The traplinked software delivers all of this automatically: complete, in real time and transparent.What happened, who responded and when, how do we know? The traplinked software delivers all of this automatically.

As of 10/2026 · sources linked directly on the page

Book a meeting Go to the checklist

Key facts at a glance

What happened

Not “checked monthly”, but: March 14, 3:12 AM, station R-14, catch.

Who responded and when

Who saw the alert, when they were on site, what they did: as one chain in the same history.

Redundant and transparent

Every system transmits redundantly, every alert is traceable. Sensor status, AI image analysis and radio and battery data serve as proof.

Every dayevery station reports, instead of 12 spot checks a year

At the push of a buttonaudit report as a PDF, instead of compiling the paper binder

CompleteSensor status, radio and battery data as proof in the history

On audit day

Select the period, export, done

The auditor gets no password and no software training. They get a document: the same history you have seen throughout the year.

traplinked App

OverviewSite mapTasks DevicesNetworkReports ImagesEscalation levelsAccess

Devices at this location

ALLE GERÄTEZUGEWIESEN Operating mode Status Export

	Name	Serial number	Location	Status	Battery
LoRa	Station R-3	DEMO-0431	North Plant	Online	87 %
LoRa	Station R-14	DEMO-0514	North Plant	Online	83 %
LoRa	Station R-16	DEMO-0662	North Plant	Online	90 %
LoRa	Station R-19	DEMO-0718	North Plant	Online	86 %
LoRa	Station R-20	DEMO-0803	North Plant	Online	86 %
LoRa	Station R-29	DEMO-0947	North Plant	Online	90 %

Sample data: names, location and serial numbers are fictitious.

traplinked

Location: All locationsType: Alerts

Date: 03/14/2026Time: 8:20 AM

Device name	Serial number	Location	Status	Time	Comments
R-14	DEMO1A2B	Indoor area	Catch reported	14-03-2026 03:12:07	---
RKS - 2	DEMO3C4D	Outdoor area	Heartbeat missed	14-03-2026 03:23:14	---
RKS - 2	DEMO3C4D	Outdoor area	Reachable again	14-03-2026 05:41:02	---
MS - 3	DEMO5E6F	Indoor area	Battery low	14-03-2026 06:18:33	---
R-14	DEMO1A2B	Indoor area	Inspection confirmed	14-03-2026 07:40:51	---

What it contains

Five parts, and each one answers one of the auditor's questions

The first part is the one an auditor wants to see first: where on site the stations are located, and which of them is currently reporting something.

Site map with all stationsAudit question: Is everything covered?

Every station is shown with its number at its place on the floor plan. Gaps stand out before the auditor finds them.

Events with time stampsAudit question: What happened?

March 14, 3:12 AM, station R-14, catch: not “checked in March”. This is the part a signed list cannot deliver.

Response with the person responsibleAudit question: Who responded?

Who saw the alert, when they were on site, what they did: alert, inspection, action and result as one chain, not as four separate pieces of paper.

Trend per siteAudit question: Is it getting better or worse?

Development over weeks and months instead of twelve individual data points a year. This is exactly what the newer versions of the standards ask for.

The part almost everyone forgetsProof of functionAudit question: Was monitoring really running?

A log without proof of function only proves that nothing was reported, not that something would have been reported. Battery level and radio quality per station prove that monitoring was actually running over the whole period. This is exactly where systems fail in an audit.

What the standard requires

What the standards require for documentation

Every standard words it differently, but at their core they all require the same thing: documented inspections, documented responses and a view of how things develop over time.

IFS Food v8, 4.13.2Documented, risk-based measures

Including a bait location plan, inspection frequency and clear responsibilities.

The site map and stations are stored in the app, each station with its position.

IFS Food v8, 4.13.4Documenting inspections and measures

Inspections and the resulting measures are documented, and every infestation is recorded.

Every event has a time stamp, a station and the documented response.

IFS Food v8, 4.13.7Checking effectiveness with trend analysis

The effectiveness of the measures is monitored, including trend analysis, and the records are available.

The history per station and site is the trend analysis, with no extra effort.

BRCGS, ch. 4.14Records and trends

Records of inspections and measures, plus an analysis that makes trends visible.

Export for any period, with event list and history.

VO (EG) 852/2004Adequate procedures to control pests

Annex II, Chapter IX, point 4: “Adequate procedures are to be in place to control pests.”

The continuous history proves that the procedure works over the whole period.

Sources: IFS Food version 8 (PDF) BRCGS Food Safety Regulation (EC) No 852/2004
Summary in our own words, the original text is authoritative.

Why the signed list is not enough

A signed inspection list proves that someone was there on one day. It does not prove what happened in the weeks in between, and that is exactly what an auditor asks about as soon as they see an infestation in the history. The question then is not “were you there?”, but “how long has this been going on?”.

A digital log has an answer to that for every single day, because every station reported every day: activity or no activity. Twelve data points a year become a continuous history, and an assumption becomes a date.

How the auditor gets access

Two ways, both without preparation: select the period and site and export as a PDF, or give the auditor read-only access so they can go through the history themselves. Many businesses now prefer to show it live rather than on paper, because follow-up questions can be cleared up right at the screen.

You set the retention period to match what your standard requires. Export is possible at any time, even retroactively for past years.

To check off

Audit checklist for pest monitoring

What is checked under pest monitoring at your next IFS, HACCP or BRCGS audit: one page, ready to print.

Site map of all stations
Inspection intervals and records
Responses with the person responsible
Trend analysis per site
Active ingredients and safety data sheets
Proof of competence

Download PDF

Frequently asked questions

Short answers

How long is the data from digital pest control documentation retained?

As long as your standard requires. Export is possible at any time, even retroactively for past periods, so you can support every audit with the complete history.

Can the auditor look directly into the system?

Yes, with read-only access. They see the same history as you, but cannot change anything. Many businesses now prefer to show the history live rather than on paper, because follow-up questions can be cleared up right at the screen.

What happens to manual inspections?

They remain part of the program and are recorded in the traplinked App. This keeps everything in one history instead of two separate filing systems, and the auditor sees digital alerts and manual inspections together.

What happens in the log if a station fails?

The failure is recorded in the log with time and duration, and you receive an alert. This is not a flaw, but proof that the monitoring itself is being monitored: a gap nobody notices is the real problem in an audit.

What your standard requires DIN 10523 Book a meeting

Any questions?

A conversation clears up more than three pages of text.

Book a meeting Back to overview