What the unit asks
The draft treats benchmarking as a business activity with an owner and a commitment, not as a laboratory exercise that ends in a chart. The decision sets the cost of an error: a wrong shortlist wastes a procurement cycle, while a wrong certification scope can put a mark on a service that cannot carry it.
What good practice looks like
Write the decision, the decision maker, the date and the consequence of a wrong answer. Choose the indicator of confidence from that consequence, and record the choice before seeing any result.
Evidence an assessor asks for
| Artefact | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| A one-page comparison brief naming the decision, the audience and the date. | It fixes the purpose and stops the scope drifting towards whatever is easy to test. |
| The indicator and threshold chosen, with the policy or brief that required them. | It makes the pass mark auditable. |
| The decision record that used the result. | It closes the loop between the test and the choice it informed. |
What a good answer sounds like
A good answer to P3-02 names A one-page comparison brief naming the decision, the audience and the date., dates it, and says what it does not cover. A policy or a promise is not an answer. If P3-02 has no artefact, the row is not met and the absence is the finding.
Where comparisons commonly fail
- The test is run because a competitor published a number, with no decision attached.
- The audience is described as stakeholders, so no one knows what level of detail the report needs.
- The threshold is chosen after the results are seen.
Questions to put to the supplier
- Who will act on this result, and what will they do differently?
- What would a wrong answer cost that person?
How this is used in the kit
P3-02 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.
Source for this page
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 5 N3928, AWI 27566-2 working draft. Public working draft of the benchmarking part, at the ETSI document box.
- Measurement of Age Assurance Technologies. The DRCF and ICO research report on measuring age assurance technologies.
Retrieved 2026-10-21. P3-02 is our statement of WG 5 N3928, clause 4.1.2; the DIS body is not public, so no DIS clause number is claimed.