Limitations
The standard covers creation. It does not detect or evaluate a problematic algorithm in live use, and it does not track or certify.
What clause 1.5 asks
What the document covers is the creation of a system in which any bias that is needed is the intended kind. It stops there. Finding and judging a bad algorithm that is already in service sits outside it, and so do tracking and certification. The boundary is a statement about the method, not a licence to ignore a system after launch; it tells the reader where this document ends and other forms of assurance begin.
Why it matters
The limitation protects both the buyer and the seller of assurance. A vendor that says its monitoring product makes an organization conformant is overstating the standard. An organization that says it cannot be asked about live bias because the standard stops at creation is understating its own duty. The clause 9.3 ongoing evaluation is part of the standard, so there is a continuing duty inside the creation frame, but it is not a certification or a tracking service.
What good looks like
Write the limitation into every assurance response. Say what the standard covers, what it does not, and which other process covers the rest. Keep the live monitoring evidence separate from the conformance evidence so a reader can see the boundary. If a customer asks for a certificate, say plainly that the standard has no certification scheme and offer the signed claim and the evidence instead.
Evidence an assessor asks for
The assessor will check that the claim does not imply certification and that live monitoring is not presented as clause compliance. A claim that blurs the line is a credibility risk even when the underlying work is good.
- Limitation statement A standard paragraph in the assurance pack that states the creation scope and the exclusions
- Monitoring evidence The separate record of live monitoring, clearly labelled as outside the conformance claim
- Response wording The approved language for a customer or regulator question about certification
- Boundary decision A note recording which assurance activities are in the claim and which are not
Where it commonly fails
- The marketing says the organization is certified to the standard
- A live monitoring dashboard is presented as proof of conformance
- The limitation is used to refuse any question about bias after deployment
What to do before publication
Keep the limitation in the same document as the claim, so no reader sees one without the other.
Read across
← 1.4 Field of application1.6 Organization of the standard →