Publish the claim and the method

What the unit asks

The draft's transparency obligation is specific: the summary goes out with the practice statement, and the detailed report follows a recognised reporting structure. The point is not marketing reach. It is that a claim a buyer cannot check is not a comparison, and a market where claims cannot be compared does not work.

What good practice looks like

Put the summary where the practice statement lives, with the same version date. State the object, the indicator, the threshold, the sample and the date. Say what the test did not cover. Keep the detailed report available on request under a confidentiality term.

Evidence an assessor asks for

What a good answer sounds like

A good answer to P3-15 names The published summary, with its URL and version date., dates it, and says what it does not cover. A policy or a promise is not an answer. If P3-15 has no artefact, the row is not met and the absence is the finding.

Where comparisons commonly fail

• The summary is published but the practice statement is not.
• The published claim is broader than the tested object.
• The summary has no date, so a reader cannot tell which version it describes.

Questions to put to the supplier

1. Can a buyer check this claim without asking the supplier?
2. Does the public summary match the detailed report?

How this is used in the kit

P3-15 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.