Write the analysis report

What the unit asks

The draft ties the report to the ISO/IEC 29155-3 reporting structure and asks for the summary to be published alongside the practice statement. That combination is what makes a comparison useful outside the buying organisation: the public can see the claim and the method, and a regulator can see the scope.

What good practice looks like

Write the limitations section with the same care as the results. Name the version of the system, the date of the test and the version of the practice statement. Publish the summary beside the statement and keep the detailed report available under the confidentiality terms the draft allows.

Evidence an assessor asks for

What a good answer sounds like

A good answer to P3-14 names The executive summary, published with the practice statement., dates it, and says what it does not cover. A policy or a promise is not an answer. If P3-14 has no artefact, the row is not met and the absence is the finding.

Where comparisons commonly fail

• The public summary is a marketing page with one percentage on it.
• The detailed report omits the sample and the limitations.
• The report does not say which version of the system was tested.

Questions to put to the supplier

1. Can a reader see the method as well as the number?
2. Is the public summary the same claim as the detailed report?

How this is used in the kit

P3-14 becomes one row of the comparison register, with an owner, a status and the evidence named above. A status of met asks for the artefact and its date, and the free check uses the same row as an evidence question, so the page and the register share one vocabulary.