Directory & Transparency
How to verify an accreditation claim: a user guide
Step-by-step verification for buyers, regulators, and partners.
Why this matters
Credible accreditation depends on consistent methods, clear decisions, and evidence that stands up to independent review. This publication translates essential expectations into practical steps so teams can prepare, communicate, and operate with confidence.
Key requirements and expectations
- Define what is publicly visible and why.
- Make status and scope understandable to non-experts.
- Keep data synchronized with authoritative records.
- Provide a clear path to verify and report issues.
- Verify the unique ID and scope in the public directory.
- Confirm status is active and within validity dates.
- Check for suspensions or withdrawals that affect scope.
Evidence and records to prepare
- Public record schema aligned with internal records.
- Change logs showing status updates and approvals.
- Verification workflow for external inquiries.
- Policies for data accuracy and correction timelines.
- Public directory entries with scope and status history.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Publishing claims without scope or status context.
- Out-of-date listings that erode trust.
- No clear way to report misuse or inaccuracies.
- Overly technical language that users cannot interpret.
- Accepting certificates without cross-checking the directory.
Practical checklist
- Define status labels and their meaning.
- Synchronize public data with authoritative sources.
- Provide a verification or inquiry path.
- Review public records on a fixed cadence.
- Use the directory ID, not just the organization name.