Evaluation must follow a plan, use assigned and informed people, cover the full scope and document every result before review.
What applies today
The body must plan the evaluation work so that the necessary arrangements can be managed. It must assign people to each evaluation task carried out with internal resources. It must ensure that the information and documentation needed for each task are available. It must carry out the internal tasks and manage outsourced resources in line with the plan, and evaluate the product against the requirements in the certification scope and any other scheme requirements. It may rely on evaluation results completed before the application only where it takes responsibility for them and satisfies itself that the organisation that did the work meets the outsourcing requirements and the scheme. It must tell the client about every nonconformity. If the client wants to continue, it must explain the additional evaluation needed to verify correction, and repeat the process if the client agrees. All evaluation results must be documented before review.
Why it matters
Evaluation is the evidence-gathering stage, and the clause is mostly about discipline: a plan, the right people, the right information, the full scope and a record before anyone reviews or decides. The nonconformity route is often handled informally. The clause requires the body to tell the client, explain what else is needed and then actually verify the correction. The reliance rule prevents a body from adopting a test report without owning the judgement behind it.
The public FDIS contents lists clause 7.4 as Evaluation. 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 plan with tasks, assigned people, sites and dates. The party this touches first is The evaluation lead, the assessors and the technical reviewers.
What the assessor asks for
| Category | Artefact to have ready |
|---|---|
| Evaluation plan | Plan with tasks, assigned people, sites and dates |
| Assignment | Named evaluator for each task and the competence link |
| Nonconformity log | Notice to the client, additional task and verification of correction |
| Prior results | Reliance decision, provider evidence and responsibility record |
| Results file | Documented evaluation results dated before the review |
One common question. pick a nonconformity and trace it from the client notice to the verification. A closed nonconformity with no evidence of correction is a direct finding.
Common failures
- The evaluation plan is a standard template with no client-specific tasks
- Nonconformities are sent to the client but the correction is never verified
- A prior test report is adopted without checking the provider's scope
Prepare before publication
Take the last five evaluation files and check the date order: results before review, review before decision. Any inversion is a transition action.
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 7.4 has no separate date.
Cross-references
7.3 Application review · 7.5 Review · 7.6 Certification decision · 6.2.1 Internal resources · 6.2.2 External resources (outsourcing)
Source
Source for 7.4: ISO/IEC 17065:2012, Clause 7.4, 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.