Website representations

Match the accreditation claim to the scope document

Compare the exact public statement with the genuine scope document: the laboratory named, any location specified, the activity covered, and the dates or status the record actually states. Mark each element as matching, different or unresolved. ISO/IEC 17025 concerns laboratory competence, impartiality and consistent operation; a reference to it does not certify a store’s products. A documentary match narrows the wording you can substantiate, but this comparison does not independently certify current accreditation or method competence.

For: An owner or content reviewer for a research-only store that publishes a laboratory-accreditation statement beside product evidence or elsewhere on the website.

Updated 2026-10-01

Request a website review

Identify what the public wording attributes to whom

Capture the statement as it appears on the actual page, including the nearby heading, badge, image caption and linked evidence. Identify the subject of the claim: the merchant, a named laboratory, a product, or a test activity. A statement next to a product can imply a connection that the underlying document does not make. Review that connection explicitly rather than recording only the standard number.

ISO’s public page for ISO/IEC 17025:2017 describes requirements for the competence, impartiality and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories, and says accreditation bodies use it as assessment criteria. That describes the standard’s purpose. It does not identify your supplier’s laboratory as accredited, authenticate a report or certify a product offered by the store.

If the public statement attributes accreditation to the merchant while the supplied record names a separate laboratory, record the different subjects. If it attributes certification to a product while the record concerns laboratory activities, record that difference as well. These are visible attribution gaps that can be addressed without judging the laboratory’s technical work.

Read the scope record beyond the certificate heading

Obtain the genuine scope document associated with the claim, including any pages or attachments it references. Record its issuer, document identifier, version or issue date, and the laboratory name exactly as printed. Compare any location named in the public statement with the location information the record actually provides. A shared brand or similar name is a question to resolve, not a reason to assume two records concern the same laboratory.

Next compare the activity your page describes with the activity the scope actually states. Where the record names a method, material, measurement or other limitation, retain that wording in the private comparison. Do not replace a narrow entry with a broader description of every test the laboratory offers. If the public claim refers to a particular report, note which claimed activity would need to connect that report to the scope.

A product report or certificate heading may help identify the relevant laboratory, but neither substitutes for a scope document that you do not have. If an attachment is missing or the activity cannot be located, mark coverage unresolved and request the specific record. The fact that an evidence link opens is a separate finding from whether its content supports the claim.

Separate dated coverage from current status

Record the validity wording and dates the document actually states. Distinguish its issue date, any stated validity period, the date of an associated laboratory report and the date you reviewed the website. Uploading a file today does not refresh the dates inside it. If the public claim uses present-tense wording, a historical document alone may leave current status unresolved.

Compare the record with the relevant accreditation body’s current information or seek confirmation through that body’s published route when status or scope cannot be established from the material available. Preserve the exact record consulted and the date of that consultation. This worksheet does not supply a universal expiry rule, presume every scope has the same format, or determine whether an older report remains valid.

Even a current record naming the laboratory does not establish that every activity advertised by the merchant falls inside its scope. Keep status and activity coverage as separate findings. If the wording of a method or scope limitation requires technical interpretation, identify the exact phrase for the laboratory or accreditation body to clarify; do not decide method competence from a name match.

Choose a correction proportionate to the evidence

When the laboratory, activity and dated record match, keep the public wording within those supported bounds. When the claim is broader, identify the exact phrase that needs narrowing. When the identity, scope or status is unresolved, avoid continuing an unqualified accreditation assurance while seeking the missing record. Preserve the prior wording and the source used for the correction so the next editor can understand why it changed.

The FTC’s U.S. truth-in-advertising guidance calls for truthful, nonmisleading advertising supported by appropriate evidence across media, including websites. It does not approve a particular accreditation phrase or determine the legal treatment of your business. Use it as a reason to examine the full public representation, including adjacent product text, rather than treating a linked standard as permission to make a broader assurance.

For a Prism website-review consultation, provide the website, research-only products, affected public URLs and the statement you want compared. Describe which scope record you hold and the mismatch, without sending private reports or customer records through the public form. Confirm the pages, evidence handling, responsibilities, fees and terms before work begins. Any agreed website review remains distinct from accreditation verification, technical assessment and legal advice. The inquiry receives email follow-up and is not an appointment, purchase or processing application.

Accreditation scope comparison

Use one sheet for one public statement and its actual scope record. Record document references and brief findings, not confidential reports. Mark each comparison matching, different or unresolved. A match means the compared words align with that record; it is not independent certification of status, competence or product quality.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

Accreditation scope comparison. The last column is for temporary notes.
Claim elementEvidence to compareInterpretation and next actionYour reference and finding
Public accreditation statementExact wording, page URL and surrounding badge, image caption or product text.Identify who or what the page presents as accredited before comparing the evidence.
Named laboratoryLaboratory name and any location in the claim beside the same information in the scope document.Record differences in entity or site; a similar brand name does not resolve them.
Actual scope-document referenceIssuer, document identifier, version or issue date and relevant attachment or page.Missing scope pages leave the claim unresolved even when a certificate heading or report is available.
Stated activityThe activity claimed on the page beside the precise entry and any limitations in the scope.Do not extend one stated activity to every method or product. Request clarification for technical ambiguity.
Stated validityDates and status wording in the record, any associated report date and the public statement’s time reference.Keep issue, validity and website-review dates distinct; obtain current confirmation where needed.
Unresolved mismatchThe exact claim element absent from or inconsistent with the record and the missing evidence needed.Assign a factual correction or a specific question instead of certifying the laboratory yourself.
Publication decisionSupported wording, affected URLs, responsible editor and reference to the evidence used.Narrow or remove unsupported wording and record the decision; do not turn a laboratory scope into a product certificate.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.

Limits

  • ISO/IEC 17025 is a laboratory standard, not a certification of the merchant’s products. This comparison does not authenticate a report or certify technical competence.
  • Current accreditation, activity coverage and a particular report’s status require their own evidence. A documentary wording match does not settle all three.
  • The FTC source is U.S. advertising guidance, not approval of any phrase or a legal opinion for another jurisdiction.
  • Laboratory evidence and research-only wording do not establish payment-provider eligibility or endorsement.

Related guides

Sources

  • ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — checked 2026-09-21. ISO’s public description concerns competence, impartiality and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories, and identifies accreditation bodies as users of the assessment criteria. It does not certify a merchant’s product or establish a particular laboratory’s status.
  • FTC truth in advertising — checked 2026-09-28. Advertising must be truthful, nonmisleading and appropriately substantiated across media, including websites. The guidance does not establish that any specific accreditation phrase is lawful.
  • Prism solutions — checked 2026-09-21. Prism’s public support includes storefront review and connecting provider website questions to the relevant pages. The consultation confirms scope, fees and terms; providers decide eligibility.
  • Prism contact — checked 2026-09-21. The form asks for the website, products and question and excludes payment-card details, passwords and customer records. Follow-up is by email; the inquiry is not an appointment, purchase or processing application.

Request a website review

Want a second look at your own storefront pages?

Request a website reviewAll resources