Someone outside the evaluation must review all the information and results and document a recommendation for the decision.
What applies today
The body must name at least one reviewer for the whole file, independent of the evaluation. The review must be done by someone who took no part in the evaluation. The recommendation that comes out of the review must be written down, except where one person finishes the review and the decision together.
Why it matters
Review is the quality gate between gathering evidence and granting a certificate. Its value depends on independence from the evaluation, not on seniority. The clause allows the review and decision to be concurrent by the same person, but only where they are genuinely completed together. That exception is narrow and is often used too broadly. The documented recommendation is what lets a later reader see the reasoning, especially when the decision departs from it.
The public FDIS contents lists clause 7.5 as 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 review of all results, with the reviewer named and the date. The party this touches first is The reviewer, who must not have taken part in the evaluation.
What the assessor asks for
| Category | Artefact to have ready |
|---|---|
| Review record | Review of all results, with the reviewer named and the date |
| Independence | Record showing the reviewer was not involved in the evaluation |
| Recommendation | Documented recommendation to grant, refuse or defer |
| Combined route | Record that review and decision were completed together, where that route is used |
One common question. compare the evaluation team with the reviewer. A reviewer who signed the evaluation report as well is a direct independence finding.
Common failures
- The technical manager reviews every file, including files they evaluated
- The recommendation is a tick box with no reasoning
- Review and decision are combined for every client without a recorded justification
Prepare before publication
Check the last twenty files for reviewer and evaluator overlap. Record any overlap and decide how it will be resolved.
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 7.5 has no separate date.
Cross-references
7.4 Evaluation · 7.6 Certification decision · 4.2 Management of impartiality · 6.1.2 Management of competence for personnel
Source
Source for 7.5: ISO/IEC 17065:2012, Clause 7.5, 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.