Key takeaways
- 1"What does clause 8.4 require?" A description of the requirement, what it covers, and how conformity is typically evidenced.
- 2"Is our procedure adequate?" We cannot review your draft — that is participation in establishing the system.
- 3"Can you review our manual before the audit?" No.
The rule is easy to state and harder to picture. So here is the boundary as it actually appears in conversation — real question shapes, and where each one falls.
The test is not whether an answer would be useful. It is whether it is generic or client-specific. Generic information is true for every organization holding the standard. Client-specific advice is participation in establishing your system, and ISO/IEC 17021-1 clause 5.2.5 prohibits it.
Questions we answer fully
"What does clause 8.4 require?" A description of the requirement, what it covers, and how conformity is typically evidenced. True for everyone.
"Does the standard require a documented procedure for this?" A factual question about the standard with a factual answer.
"How is audit duration calculated?" Global ACI TECH-3-004 (formerly IAF MD 5), effective number of personnel, the factors that adjust it. Published methodology.
"What happens if we get a major nonconformity?" Our process, which we are required to make public under clause 8.1.1 anyway.
"What is the difference between correction and corrective action?" A definitional question. Answering it is not designing your response.
"Who takes the certification decision?" Personnel who did not carry out the audit. Structural, and worth knowing.
Questions we answer in part
"Is our procedure adequate?" We cannot review your draft — that is participation in establishing the system. What we can say is what the clause requires and how conformity is assessed, which is the same information from the other direction.
"Which sites should be in our scope?" Scope is determined by you, and confirmed at application review against what we are accredited for. We can explain how scope works and what makes a scope statement misleading under clause 8.2.2. We cannot draw yours.
"Should we integrate our three systems?" We can explain what integrated auditing means and how duration is affected. Whether it suits your organization is your decision.
Questions we decline
"Can you review our manual before the audit?" No. Clause 3.3 names preparing or producing manuals or procedures as consultancy. Reviewing and advising on yours is participation in maintaining the system.
"Can you tell us what to fix to pass?" No. That is giving specific advice and solutions towards implementation. Findings are reported with the evidence and the requirement; determining the response is yours, and corrective action requires you to find the cause.
"Can you run our internal audit?" No — and this one carries a two-year consequence. Clause 5.2.6 bars us from certifying a system we internally audited for at least two years after that work ends.
"Which consultant do you recommend?" No. Clause 5.2.9 prohibits marketing our activities as linked with a consultancy's, and any recommendation would compromise the independence you are paying for.
"Can you give us a template?" No. A template that produces your documented information is participation in establishing the system, whatever it is called.
Why we decline in that shape
You will notice the declines come with the clause and the reasoning rather than a flat no.
That is deliberate, and it is not a courtesy. A refusal without explanation reads as unhelpfulness and invites the question again in a different form. A refusal that names the rule tells you something you can use — including, often, the generic version of the answer you were looking for.
The awkward case is the genuinely well-intentioned question asked in good faith by someone under pressure, usually close to an audit date. Declining it feels unhelpful in the moment. But the alternative is a certificate that would not survive scrutiny, issued to an organization that will rely on it in front of a customer.
If we get it wrong
Auditors are people, and a helpful instinct is a professional hazard in this work. If a CAS auditor or member of staff offers you something that reads as client-specific advice, we want to know.
Not as a complaint about the individual — as a control. Under clause 5.2.13 our personnel are required to reveal situations that could present a conflict of interest, and impartiality is monitored rather than assumed.
Our complaints route is published and independent of the audit team.
This article is generic information about how certification bodies are required to operate, not advice on any particular management system.
CAS — An EGAC accredited MS certification body No. 012418.
Verify any certificate: cas.com.eg/certsearch
Read next