The same method. No corrections. No statement.
We do not correct, we do not propose solutions, and we do not issue a statement. Afterwards you decide: enter a formal verification at any time — or do not. The report belongs to you and commits you to nothing.
The limits are the product.
We do
Under the verification method- Examine the file using the verification method
- Issue numbered findings, each linked to the requirement it relates to
- Give a severity estimate for each finding
- Hand over a non-accredited report
We do not
At any price- Correct anything, or prepare anything
- Propose solutions or write a “suggested action” column
- Issue a statement or use the accreditation symbol
- Oblige you to take formal verification with us
Independence rules — published, not implied
Self-review threat controlledThis service is not consultancy and not a “mock audit” that guarantees a later outcome. We do not choose the methodology for the client, we do not write the assertion, and we do not propose treatment.
If the client later requests formal verification, an independent assessment of the self-review threat is completed before acceptance. Readiness-review personnel are separated from the verification, independent review and decision functions, and the engagement may be declined if the threat cannot be reduced to an acceptable level.
CBAM application: a non-accredited readiness review may assess whether the evidence file is complete and traceable, provided the functional separation is complete and the service does not become the design of the monitoring plan or the calculation of emissions. Acceptance of readiness work does not mean a later CBAM verification engagement can or will be accepted.
A numbered findings report.
It states what was examined, what was found, the requirement each finding relates to, and an estimate of its severity.
Why we will not correct it for you.
Because if we corrected it, we would later be examining our own work. The value of the statement we may issue afterwards comes precisely from the fact that we put nothing into what it examines.
Frequently asked
No. A later formal engagement requires a new scope, competence, resources and impartiality review. It may be declined, and any conclusion depends on the evidence examined during that formal engagement.
Sometimes. It depends on the self-review threat assessment made at acceptance, on team separation, and on the nature of the readiness work performed. Where the threat cannot be reduced to an acceptable level we decline the verification.
No. It carries no accreditation symbol and is not a conformity-assessment output. It is a private document for your internal use.
Read next
Describe the claim — not the service.
Tell us what must be relied on, who will rely on it and by what date. We will confirm the correct programme, evidence requirement and responsible entity — or tell you it is outside our scope.