| ♥ 0 |
Please Marked as spam
 Posted by Suresh Kumar (Discussions: 1, Comments: 0) Replied on October 11, 2018 11:21 pm
Category:
LIMS / Laboratory Informatics
95 views
|
|
Private comment
Good evening. I am an auditor and I went through a few audits with the new norm. It is indeed a shall but you have several ways to handle this. You can specify that you report values without the uncertainty but you must mention that it is available. You can avoid to use it BUT it is better to manage this and have a customer info/approbation before issuing reports In some firelds of application (water in Europe), if you respect the performance requirements of the regulation, you can even report conform/not conform status of a parameter without taking into account the uncertainty, if you do not comply with the regulation, you must report a value and it’s uncertainty Marked as spam
 Posted by Vincent Laurent (Discussions: 1, Comments: 11) Replied on November 14, 2018 4:10 pm
|
|
|
Private comment
Small correction : for calibration certificate, uncertainty is a must !, my remrks are mainly for test reports, sorry Marked as spam
Posted by Vincent Laurent (Discussions: 1, Comments: 11) Replied on November 14, 2018 4:19 pm
|
Please Sign-in to post a discussion or comment.
7.8.4.1 is a ”shall” statement, which means it is required. I have not been through an audit with the new 2017 standard, but the way I read it, you would be required to report the uncertainty on each report, regardless of request.
Hi Jordan, thanks for helping out on this post. Hope all is well.