Set the re-run triggers

What the unit asks

A comparison is a statement about a version at a time. The draft's concern with comparability over time is the reason the trigger list belongs in the programme, not in a footnote. The publication of the final standard is one trigger among several, and it is the one this site is built to watch.

What good practice looks like

Write the trigger list and the owner. Put the key date in the calendar. Where the trigger fires, re-run the affected tests and publish a new summary with a new date, keeping the old one.

Evidence an assessor asks for

What a good answer sounds like

A good answer to P3-17 names The trigger list with the owner and the response for each., dates it, and says what it does not cover. A policy or a promise is not an answer. If P3-17 has no artefact, the row is not met and the absence is the finding.

Where comparisons commonly fail

• The comparison is treated as a one-off project.
• A threshold change is deployed without a re-test.
• No one owns the trigger list.

Questions to put to the supplier

1. What would make this comparison out of date?
2. Who is responsible for re-running it, and by when?

How this is used in the kit

P3-17 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.