A sample skincare compliance gap review

Three products, three different gaps

This is a wholly synthetic gap review. Product A, Product B and Product C do not represent customers or real formulations. The review does not produce a percentage compliance score. Its purpose is to show what can be recorded, what remains uncertain and what the next owner needs to do.

For a real product, start with the actual market and business role. HPRA's Irish market guidance and PIF guidance provide Ireland/EU starting points. GB and NI need their own sources and scope decisions.

Product A: the file is missing

Product A revision 2 is a fictional Ireland/EU face oil. The workspace contains a product description and an artwork draft. The current safety-report reference has not been recorded.

The gap is evidence not recorded, rather than a specialist finding that a particular document is inadequate. The owner needs to locate the applicable record or arrange the appropriate next step with the responsible specialist. The action should identify the current specification and packaging so that the later handover does not concern the wrong product.

Product B: a file is present but unreviewed

Product B revision 1 has a supplier bundle attached. Its filename contains the word safety. The workspace has no specialist finding about what the file covers or whether it answers the finished-product question.

The presence field can say Present. The completeness and relevance fields remain Not checked. A supplier document should not become a finished-product safety assessment because of its filename. The next action is to identify the document type, its version, its material or product link and the question to put to the reviewer.

Product C: the earlier review belongs to an old revision

Product C has an earlier review against revision 3. The current product record is revision 4 after a packaging change. The old finding remains part of the history; it does not automatically approve the new record.

The action is to identify the changed packaging information and obtain a scoped review of revision 4. The reviewer may need further evidence before deciding the effect. The example does not pre-decide that the change is either harmless or unacceptable.

What the maker records

For each product, retain the current profile, market, evidence references, open question and action owner. Write the requested next step in terms another person can complete, such as locate the report for revision 2, identify the supplier document's scope, or review packaging revision 4.

What the specialist decides

Frances owns specialist QC and regulatory interpretation in the CosmeBeacon workflow. An assessor's safety-report work remains a separate qualified role. A saved product, uploaded file or completed task is not that specialist decision.

The review result should identify the product revision, evidence considered, findings, conditions and unresolved questions. If the product changes, the new revision needs its own current review state. The accompanying three-product record demonstrates those distinctions without presenting the example as a compliance certificate.

Sources and legal dates