An organisation tells me · we are certified. I ask for the certificate and they show me a record of an internal course signed by a consultant. That is an attendance record with elegant typography. The distance between that document and certification is the entire distance covered by this criterion.
The conformity assessment system distinguishes four forms relevant to this piece · accreditation, certification, validation and verification. Naming them precisely makes it possible to identify what object was assessed, against which criteria and with what type of statement.
Form 01 · Accreditation
To accredit is to issue a third-party attestation of the competence of a conformity assessment body. It is neither certification of the certifier nor an institutional award. Its authority rests on the scope of accreditation and recognition arrangements. From 1 January 2026, Global Accreditation Cooperation Incorporated — Global ACI — took over the functions previously performed by IAF and ILAC (Global ACI, 2026).
Outside recognised chains, there are also entities that use the term accreditation with other meanings. The designation does not establish competence: the object, scope, criteria and applicable recognition must be reviewed.
Form 02 · Certification
To certify is to issue a third-party attestation relating to an object of conformity assessment, against defined requirements. In management systems, the certificate identifies the standard, scope, entity and validity period. Its authority does not come from the full text of the standard being free of charge; it comes from the criteria being identifiable, the issuer being competent for that scope and the chain being reconstructable.
Form 03 · Validation
Within the framework of ISO/IEC 17029, to validate is to confirm the plausibility of a claim about an intended use or a future outcome. A projection of emissions reductions, for example, is examined against defined criteria, stated assumptions and available evidence. The conclusion does not say that the outcome has already occurred.
The validator delivers a conclusion within the scope and assurance level of the engagement. Presenting that conclusion as certification or as verification of an accomplished fact attributes to it a different authority from that issued.
Form 04 · Verification
In ISO/IEC 17029, to verify is to confirm the truthfulness of a claim about facts or outcomes that have already occurred. The conclusion is bounded by the object, period, criteria and assurance level of the engagement.
Take an AI credit scoring system. ISO/IEC 42001 allows certification of the management system governing its development or use. That certification does not, by itself, confirm the error rate or behaviour of a specific version. Those claims require assessment of the object against defined criteria; depending on whether they concern a projection or an outcome that has occurred, validation or verification will apply.
When the provider updates the model, the management system may retain its certification while the technical object changes. Assessment of the model needs to identify its version and date; without those two references, the conclusion ages without warning.
The publication layer · not a fifth form
Trust portals, APIs, verifiable credentials and public registers improve access to information. They do not create an additional form of conformity assessment. They publish result data and make it easier to cross-check; Criterion 16 develops the coverage and limitations of these registers.
The screen publishes a statement and makes it easier to check its validity. Its authority remains that of the assessment process that produced it. The dashboard displays; the originating form determines what can be concluded.
The criterion test
Before accepting any document intended to establish technical trust — whether from a provider or an internal team — classify it using three questions.
Question one · against which criteria was it issued? Expected answer · an identifiable and traceable document, with an edition or version where applicable. The full text may be subject to a licence; what is essential is knowing which requirements underpin the statement.
Question two · who issued it and with what documented competence? Expected answer · the body, scope and applicable chain are identified. If the document is presented as accredited, the accreditation must cover that activity and be cross-checkable against an official source.
Question three · what statement does it contain? Expected answer · the document distinguishes the object and the form. If it is presented as accredited certification, that chain must be reconstructed; if it assesses a changing technical object, version and date may be necessary to interpret the conclusion.
The three answers make it possible to classify the document and detect what information is missing. The final conclusion retains the limits of the criteria, scope and process that produced it.