On this page
No single ISO/IEC standard sets out one training pathway carrying someone from entry level to fully authorized auditor, inspector, examiner or assessor status across all six ASCB-accredited schemes. As Auditor competence requirements sets out, each base standard requires the accredited body to determine its own competence criteria and run its own evaluation and authorization process; the pathway's stages, timeframes and milestones sit inside that body's management system, not the standard. The base standards describe a common shape most pathways follow, set out below as a reference point rather than a substitute for a body's own pathway.
Pathway stages from entry-level to fully approved
Determining competence criteria for the role Before training begins, the accredited body defines what a competent person in the role must know and be able to do, and documents it. Every later stage is measured against these criteria. In ISO/IEC 17021-1 terms this is Clause 7.1.2; the clause map below gives the equivalent for each scheme.
Initial training and induction Someone new to a function completes a defined induction covering the knowledge the role requires. ISO/IEC 17020 is the most prescriptive here, requiring an induction period for the relevant inspection activity; the other schemes require training needs to be identified and met.
Supervised or mentored practice Induction is followed by a period working under an authorized, competent person before working alone. This is where classroom or self-study knowledge is tested against real work, with an experienced practitioner able to correct and guide before any output carries independent authorization.
Competence evaluation before authorization Before an individual takes responsibility for a function independently, the accredited body evaluates them against its criteria. Completing training is not enough on its own: competence has to be demonstrated, and the body must be able to show that its evaluation methods are themselves effective. This step separates a trainee from an authorized practitioner.
Formal authorization Once competence is demonstrated, the accredited body formally authorizes the individual to perform the function and records that authorization and its scope. Some roles carry added criteria beyond general authorization, such as making a certification decision, holding signatory status or conducting technical review: see Signatory eligibility criteria and Technical reviewer requirements.
Ongoing monitoring and maintenance Authorization is not indefinite by default. Performance is monitored at a defined frequency, auditors and inspectors are periodically observed at work, and a monitoring gap is treated as a training need. CPD guidance for CB auditors covers what this looks like for an auditor maintaining status.
Where each scheme sets this out
Five of the six schemes state the same five-step process in a single clause: set the criteria, train, demonstrate competence, authorize, monitor. One line per scheme:
• ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015: competence criteria at Clause 7.1.2; demonstration before taking responsibility, and ongoing monitoring, at Clause 7.1.3.
• ISO/IEC 17020:2026: the whole process at Clause 6.1.2; the induction and mentored working period at Clause 6.1.4; monitoring and observation at Clauses 6.1.5 to 6.1.7.
•
ISO/IEC 17024:2026: competence management at Clauses 6.1.4 and 6.1.5.
•
ISO/IEC 17025:2017: procedures and records for the full process at Clause 6.2.5; authorization for specific activities at Clause 6.2.6.
Where ASCB-accredited training fits
ASCB accredits training under two separate schemes that feed the initial training stage above. TP:2025 accredits the training provider itself, across three Types (Type 1 Training Function, Type 2 Training Department, Type 3 Training Organisation/Institute) reflecting the delivering organization's scale and governance maturity. TC:2025 accredits an individual training course, across its own three Types plus an Individual course module for a course accredited outside a provider relationship, with Virtual and eLearning add-ons at each Type. These are two separate schemes, not mirrored versions of each other: a course accredited under TC:2025 does not imply the provider delivering it holds TP:2025 accreditation, and the reverse.
Training accredited under TC:2025, or delivered by a TP:2025-accredited provider, gives a body building its own pathway an independently verified basis for the induction and initial training stage above, rather than requiring it to evaluate a supplier's claims from scratch. It is an input to that one stage: mentored practice, evaluation, formal authorization and ongoing monitoring remain the accredited body's own responsibility under its base standard, whatever training its personnel completed beforehand.
Common questions
Is there one required training pathway?
No single ISO/IEC standard sets one; each accredited body determines its own competence criteria and runs its own evaluation and authorization process.
What shape do most pathways follow?
Determine the competence criteria for the role, initial training and induction, supervised practice, evaluation and authorization, then ongoing monitoring.
Where does ASCB-accredited training fit?
As one input to that process; the body's own pathway and criteria govern.