--- page_id: "AW04" route: "/award/methodology/" title: "Assessment method" meta_title: "Assessment method | IESQ Award" meta_description: "How IESQ establishes the applicable baseline and verifies a specific margin beyond European requirements." social_title: "Assessment method | IESQ" social_description: "How IESQ establishes the applicable baseline and verifies a specific margin beyond European requirements." language: "en-GB" content_type: "fixed" parent_route: "/award/" breadcrumbs: [{"label": "Home", "route": "/"}, {"label": "Award", "route": "/award/"}, {"label": "Assessment method", "route": "/award/methodology/"}] canonical: "/award/methodology/" owner_role: "Award programme" review_status: "published" publication_authorised: true evidence_refs: ["BESA-01"] primary_cta: {"label": "Check eligibility", "target_id": "ACTION:award"} secondary_cta: {"label": "Search the Award Register", "target_id": "ACTION:register"} related_pages: [] last_reviewed: "2026-10-19" shared_components: ["navigation-and-footer"] required_data_modules: [] body_role: "published_copy" action_urls: {"ACTION:award": "/award/eligibility/", "ACTION:register": "/award/register/"} --- # Assessment method How IESQ establishes the applicable baseline and verifies a specific margin beyond European requirements. ## The decision sequence The assessment identifies the product and required baseline, verifies the sources and model coverage, checks satisfaction of all applicable requirements within that scope, and examines the proposed core comparisons. Technical findings are reviewed before a separate authorised decision. The same sequence applies to direct applications, nominations and products identified through research. The programme does not write or amend European standards. Its own published rules govern evidence, comparison and the conditions for this Award. ## Fix the baseline before reviewing the claim Record each applicable legal framework and standard, its edition and amendments, the relevant clause, the requirement and the intended use. Distinguish a standard's publication status from citation in the Official Journal. A current catalogue entry is not proof of a current presumption of conformity. A withdrawn edition is not silently substituted for the relevant assessment basis. Where a standard is used voluntarily, the file explains its suitability. Where legislation permits another conformity route, the legal baseline is assessed on that basis; a claim of exceeding a named standard still requires evidence against that named requirement. The Award is not a substitute for the manufacturer's legal responsibilities. ## Select relevant core characteristics The product schedule identifies the characteristics that may support recognition. The scope records the selected core characteristics before detailed review and includes the other baseline checks needed for the product. IESQ records why the selected comparison matters for the product's safety, durability, performance or material characteristics. A cosmetic feature or an unrelated favourable test cannot be used to avoid a required characteristic. All baseline checks must be satisfied; at least one selected core characteristic must demonstrate a verifiable margin. The published conclusion names that characteristic and its limits. It does not state that every characteristic is superior. ## Compare like with like The reference requirement and measured result must use compatible methods, units, sample conditions, preparation, operating settings and statistical treatment. Identify whether a lower result, a higher result or a specified range is favourable. For a range, both boundaries remain relevant. Results obtained at a different temperature, loading, exposure or configuration need a documented equivalence argument; a convenient conversion is insufficient. Ordinary pass/fail observations do not establish a numerical margin. Ordinal classes are not converted into percentages. When a permitted higher performance class is used, its applicable conditions and independently demonstrated classification must be stated explicitly. ## Account for uncertainty and reporting limits Use the applicable standard's decision rule where it specifies one. Otherwise record a justified decision rule, uncertainty treatment and the risk of accepting an unsupported margin. For a simple quantitative comparison, this programme's default conservative screen places the relevant uncertainty bound on the favourable side of the reference limit: an upper-bound result must remain below an upper limit, or a lower-bound result above a lower limit. A different method needs a recorded technical justification. A result reported as below a detection or quantification limit is an interval, not a measured zero. State the reporting limit and use only the conclusion it supports. Do not calculate a precise percentage improvement from an unknown value. Absence of an uncertainty figure is not replaced by an assumed zero. [ILAC guidance on decision rules and measurement uncertainty](https://ilac.org/publications-and-resources/ilac-guidance-series/) ## A worked comparison This illustration uses invented quantities and is not a product requirement. Suppose an applicable upper limit is 10 units. A result of 9.9 units with an expanded uncertainty of 0.3 units does not establish a margin under the default conservative screen, because the upper bound is 10.2. A result of 8.0 with an uncertainty of 0.3 has an upper bound of 8.3 and may support a margin if the method, relevance and remaining conditions are satisfied. A technical finding still needs independent review and a decision. This arithmetic does not award the product or establish compliance with its other requirements. ## Record the finding and its limits For each comparison, retain the standard and clause, source requirement, report and page, measured result, units, uncertainty or classification rule, conditions, calculation and conclusion. Explain any restriction, unresolved issue or exclusion. The decision identifies the accepted model and configuration, the baseline outcome and the particular evidence supporting recognition. Approved public summaries reproduce only conclusions supported by the controlled assessment file. Confidential report contents remain restricted; the holder authorises the necessary public evidence summary. [Evidence requirements](/award/evidence/) ยท [Programme rules](/award/rules/)