I85PREP
⌘ K
QAI CSTE study materials
QAI CSTE study resources

QAI CSTE: Code Evaluation / Accreditation Services

QAI CSTE · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

Code Evaluation / Accreditation Services

This domain links two activities: code evaluation, which assesses a design, installation, or software artifact against a named code or standard, and accreditation, which formally recognizes a conformity assessment body's competence under ISO/IEC 17011:2017. Questions often test who may evaluate, which code edition applies, and how accreditation scope is granted and maintained.

Code evaluation

  • The evaluation agreement fixes the code or standard and its edition; citing a superseded edition invalidates the conclusion.
  • The evaluator assesses against defined clauses and does not design the item being evaluated, preserving impartiality.
  • Findings cite clause references, and the evaluation report states limitations and assumptions.
  • Competence covers the code, the product technology, and the evaluation method.

Accreditation process

  • The accreditation body must be impartial and must not provide the conformity assessment service it accredits.
  • Process: application, document review, on-site assessment, witnessing where relevant, decision by a competent person, then accreditation with a scope schedule.
  • Surveillance and reassessment maintain accreditation; suspension or withdrawal follows unresolved nonconformity.
  • International recognition runs through IAF and ILAC multilateral recognition arrangements, which rest on peer evaluation and are scope-specific.

Worked example

A laboratory accredited for IEC 61000-4-2 electrostatic discharge testing wants to add surge testing. It cannot self-declare the extension. The accreditation body conducts an extension assessment covering method validation, equipment, traceability, and staff competence, then a decision-maker approves the widened scope. Only after that decision does the new method appear on the scope schedule. Issuing reports with an accreditation symbol before the decision would misuse the symbol.

Traps that cost marks

  • Claiming accreditation for methods not listed on the scope schedule.
  • Treating an IAF or ILAC arrangement as automatic acceptance of every report.
  • Letting an evaluator design the item being evaluated against the code.
  • Citing an outdated code edition or an unstated edition.
  • Assuming accreditation is permanent rather than maintained through surveillance.