Start with the decision
State what the review is intended to determine and what expertise it requires. Checking that a document names a variant is different from evaluating a laboratory method, structural suitability or legal applicability. Match the reviewer’s role to the question rather than relying on a general expert label.
Build the record
Record reviewer identity or accountable role, relevant competence, scope, date, evidence versions and method. Disclose commercial relationships, funding or involvement in creating the evidence. Keep permission to publish the reviewer’s details separate from the private review record.
Check before acting
Distinguish an internal or supplier review from independent assurance. A disclosed conflict does not erase the review, but readers need it to interpret the result. Where a task exceeds competence, prepare a clear handoff to the appropriate specialist. Payment or sponsorship must not change the underlying evidence state.
Worked example — illustrative
A fictional supplier reviews its own board specification for a buyer’s quote. The buyer records that useful check as supplier review, including the relationship. A separate performance question is sent to a relevant testing body with a defined scope. The supplier check is not upgraded to independent assurance because a review form was completed.
Keep a useful handover
Record the responsible person, decision date and next review trigger with the evidence version. Keep planned actions distinguishable from confirmed activity. If later information changes the result, preserve the earlier record and update current guidance.
- Define the review question.
- Match relevant competence.
- Record scope and versions.
- Disclose material relationships.
- Separate review from independent assurance.