Some thoughts and questions:
1. How well was your predictive model working before the change in ingredients?
2. Does the current model use a completely different ingredient or is it "related" from a scientific theoretical perspective?
3. I'm not sure what you mean by "fine tuning" the model? If you have removed a variable from the model, the model could be completely different in terms of the beta coefficients of the other terms in the model. What happens to the precision of the model on historical data when that term is removed from the model?
4. I think your idea of having a column with the current predicted value (from your formula), a column of the measured response variable and a column that is the delta of the 2 would be a simple way to compare. How much difference would matter to you?
Control charts are a diagnostic. They are meant to compare different sources of variation and determine where the greatest leverage is. They do this by first assessing the stability of the basis for comparison (the range chart - which assess the stability of the within subgroup sources of variation as a function of the variables changing at that frequency). Then comparing the effect those sources have on the variability in the response to the other sources in your study (the x-bar chart - which compares the within subgroup variation (control limits) to the between subgroup sources of variation.
Now, you could do sampling of the process as it worked before the ingredient was changed (if you are just taking a quick look and not looking for diagnostics, you could use the MR, X chart of the data in time series) and the process after the ingredient was changed to see if there was an appreciable change in the response. You could also look at distributional summaries as well to get a graphical look.
"All models are wrong, some are useful" G.E.P. Box