A familiar laboratory logo is not enough to connect a supplier’s PDF to your order. Establish which document was issued, what activity and sample it covers, and whether that sample matches the product revision you intend to buy. Keep these findings separate.
Make a report review a defined buying task
This guide is for buyers and quality owners collecting evidence and routing unresolved questions. It does not certify a product or decide legal market access. The broader supplier evaluation guide covers initial due diligence; this page examines one document in detail.
1. Define the question before requesting the file
Identify the product, intended use, customer-specified standard or requirement, and the decision the evidence will support. Obtain an authorised complete report, relevant annexes and revisions from its rights holder. Retain the original file, date received, report identifier, revision and page count. A cover screenshot or cropped conclusion leaves the review incomplete; ask for missing pages instead of filling gaps yourself.
Record applicant, manufacturer and supplying entity as separate fields. Ask about differences rather than treating similar or different names as proof of authenticity or fraud. Share confidential details only with authorised reviewers. This page does not collect supplier files.
2. Separate the three findings
| Finding | Evidence to pursue | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Individual document identity | Issuer’s official verification route; matching report number, date, revision and content | Conformity of the order or later batches |
| Laboratory and relevant activity scope | Accreditation body’s record and relevant methods or activities | That every test offered by that laboratory has the same status |
| Match to your product | Tested sample identity and construction against the agreed product revision | Coverage of every similar-looking variant |
A failed online search means verification was not completed through that route. It is not by itself a finding of fraud. Record portal coverage or access limits and contact the relevant organisation.
3. Use the official route and ask the scope question
The SGS RSTS checking page is one example for specified report types and numbering ranges. It is not a universal laboratory-report database. We reviewed its instructions only and did not submit or authenticate any customer report. Find the issuer’s official website independently rather than relying solely on a QR destination supplied in the PDF.
European co-operation for Accreditation’s FAQ points readers to accreditation marks, relevant competence and test scope, and method acceptance. A laboratory lookup does not authenticate a particular PDF. The technical or compliance owner must separately determine which evidence and methods the actual destination or customer requires; this article does not make that determination.
4. Compare the tested construction with the ordered revision
Use your confirmed product specification. Mark missing or differing information about material, coating, construction, accessories, model, tested items and method version. Ask the issuer or a suitable technical reviewer to resolve the relationship. An unstated detail remains unknown.
Fictional example: the report describes an uncoated sample, while your order specifies a coating. Record “coating difference; coverage unresolved” and route it for clarification. That observation alone does not prove a pass, a failure or that retesting is mandatory. Agree any additional assessment or testing scope, cost and approval separately.
5. Close the review with limits and a trigger
The buying owner compiles the record; quality or technical colleagues review it. Inputs are the authorised complete report, confirmed specification and official verification replies. The output lists supported findings, evidence locations, open questions, owners and the next action or review date. File completeness is not a statement that a production lot is compliant or ready to ship.
Revisit the record after a corrected report, a material/construction/source change, changed requirements or an issuer’s reply. Retain earlier versions and the reason for changes; link this work to supplier change control. This guide sets no universal one-year expiry and provides no automated authentication or compliance service.
Sources and evidence boundaries
EA and SGS instructions were checked on 18 October 2026. In a construction-products discussion, a 2021 UKAS interview cautions about what an individual sample test can establish. We use that limited evidence principle, not the interview as a current market-access rule. The workflow and coating example are CZ Overseas methods and a fictional scenario, not customer results.
Buyers can now request and review a specific document, identify the product revision it may support, and assign unresolved questions without merging authenticity, laboratory competence and a conclusion about every delivered item.
Frequently asked questions
Does a laboratory directory entry authenticate a supplier’s PDF?
No. Laboratory status and scope, authenticity of an individual report, and its match to the ordered product are separate checks.
Can one report cover every color or model?
Do not infer coverage from a similar appearance. Identify differences and obtain scope clarification from the issuer or a suitable technical reviewer.
Do all test reports expire after one year?
This guide sets no universal expiry. Review the report’s conditions, standard version, product changes and actual customer or market requirements with the responsible reviewer.