Public procedure · Source policy v1.0
Clause5afe provides a formal route for an eligible assessed organization to challenge a certification decision on recognized procedural, standards-application, new-evidence, or conflict-of-interest grounds. The process is designed to correct error through an impartial review without allowing commercial pressure to purchase or force an outcome.
Who may appeal
An appeal may be filed by an authorized representative of the certified or assessed organization. A registered Named Custodian may also file when properly designated and authorized. Third-party concerns are handled through the Complaints process.
Eligible decisions
Separate routes
Recognized grounds
A required certification stage, test, or process step was not followed and the error may have affected the certification outcome.
A finding may have been classified against the wrong Clause 5 control, threshold, or in-scope Certification Amendment.
Material evidence unavailable during the engagement could reasonably change the outcome. Evidence withheld during the audit or remediation completed afterward does not qualify on this ground.
A factual basis exists to believe an auditor or certification-review participant had an undisclosed conflict that may have affected objectivity.
Independent review
Panel participation is subject to independence and conflict safeguards. People materially involved in the original evaluation or decision cannot simply re-decide their own work through the appeal process.
Complete submission
The submission includes the appellant and authorized representative, engagement reference, decision date, recognized ground or grounds, factual explanation, supporting documentation, and the applicable appeal fee.
Target timeline
Extensions may be used when complexity, scheduling, or additional information requires more time, subject to the controls in the governing policy.
Outcome
The original decision is overturned and the Panel directs the appropriate corrective certification process. The appeal fee is refunded.
Outcome
One or more grounds have merit and targeted reclassification, re-audit, or supplemental evidence review may be directed. The appeal fee is refunded.
Outcome
None of the asserted grounds have merit. The original certification decision stands and the appeal fee is retained.
Outcome
The filing does not meet procedural requirements. Fee treatment follows the Appeals Policy, including refund when dismissal is procedural rather than merits-based.
Appeal fee
The fee is refunded when an appeal is upheld in full or in part and follows the procedural-dismissal treatment in the Appeals Policy. It is retained when the appeal is denied on the merits.
Effect on status
The underlying certification decision ordinarily remains effective while the appeal proceeds, subject to the narrow exception defined by the governing policy.
Authority boundary
The appeal function may direct appropriate reclassification, re-audit, evidence review, or certification re-decision. It cannot order Clause5afe to certify a system irrespective of the evidence and governing methodology.
Related procedure
