Before work starts, the body must confirm the information is sufficient, the scope is defined, the means exist and the body is competent, and must decline what it cannot do.
What applies today
The body must review the application information to ensure that it is sufficient for the certification process; that the body and the client resolve any difference in how they read the requirement, including agreement on the standards or other normative documents; that the scope sought is defined; that the means are available for every evaluation activity; and that the body can show the skill and capacity to do the work. The body must have a process to identify when a request involves a product type, a normative document or a scheme with which it has no prior experience. In those cases it must show that it can perform every certification task with the needed skill and keep a record of why it went ahead. It must decline a specific certification if it lacks the competence or capability. If it relies on certifications already granted to the client or to other clients to omit activities, it must reference the existing certificates in its records and, on request, justify the omission.
Why it matters
Application review is the gate that keeps a commercial promise from becoming an unsubstantiated certificate. It is also where a body can honestly say no. The clause recognises that a new product type is not automatically outside competence, but it requires a recorded justification. The reliance rule stops a body from skipping work because a sister certificate exists, without showing why the earlier work covers the new request.
The public FDIS contents lists clause 7.3 as Application review. The FDIS requirement wording is not held, so the requirement above is the 2012 text that applies until publication.
Where this clause lands in the revision
This is a process clause. The public record confirms the number and title, and the process as described today is what an assessment uses until publication. A first artefact an assessor commonly asks for here is application review with the five conclusions and the reviewer. The party this touches first is The application reviewer and the technical manager who accepts a new product type or scheme.
What the assessor asks for
| Category | Artefact to have ready |
|---|---|
| Review record | Application review with the five conclusions and the reviewer |
| New area case | Competence and capability justification for a new product type, document or scheme |
| Decline log | Certification declined, with the reason and the date |
| Reliance record | Existing certificate referenced for an omitted activity, with the scope comparison |
One common question. ask for a recent new product type and read the justification. A file that says the client is important, without a competence case, is a finding.
Common failures
- The review is a signature on the application form
- A new scheme was accepted because a subcontractor could do it, with no recorded case
- Reliance on an existing certificate is described in the file but the certificate is not identified
Prepare before publication
Review the last ten applications for the five conclusions. Where one is missing, reconstruct it before the assessment.
Dates that matter
The public record gives stage 50.20 on 4 August 2026 and voting to 27 October 2026. The planning date, 15 February 2027, is an estimate from that stage and not an ISO date, and clause 7.3 has no separate date.
Cross-references
7.2 Application · 7.4 Evaluation · 6.1.2 Management of competence for personnel · 6.2.2 External resources (outsourcing)
Source
Source for 7.3: ISO/IEC 17065:2012, Clause 7.3, with the ISO/IEC FDIS 17065 public record. Our statement, not the instrument verbatim; the FDIS wording is not held.
Not legal advice; does not certify. A reading of the requirement and the evidence an assessor commonly samples, not a substitute for the standard or your accreditation body's rules.