Further to the answer given to question 48.11, what would be acceptable as impartially risk measure?
E.g. a stage 1 audit could be performed more than twice or more or the CAB could decide to “convert” the stage 1 and or 2 audit to a preliminary audit. Is this acceptable or under what conditions can this be accepted?
E.g. the CAB uses the preliminary audit as the internal audit of the client.
E.g. the risk is that the auditor that performed the preliminary audit is following up on his own preliminary audit and does not perform a full audit.
E.g. The auditor that performed the preliminary audit is given informal advice besides the preliminary nonconformities.
Given the answer to question 48.11:
a: Would it be acceptable under ISO/IEC 17065 if the scheme specifies audit activities (e.g. stage 1 or preliminary audits or document review) to perform these activities over and over again?
b: Would the same answers for question 2a be applicable for testing or inspection activities under ISO 17065?
March 2025
a: The repetition of evaluation activities (e.g. stage 1 or preliminary audits or document review) is not acceptable if it is not described in the certification scheme. Preliminary audit (as commonly understood) as part of the certification scheme is questionable regarding ISO/IEC 17065 fulfilment.
b: This would be only acceptable for inspection and testing, provided this is established in the certification scheme and in accordance with 7.4.7/7.4.8 of ISO/IEC 17065, provided it is established by the certification scheme.