Verification evaluates a claim. Certification evaluates you. Confusing the two is the fastest way to be excluded from a procurement process you were otherwise qualified for.
The words are used interchangeably in marketing material and they are not the same thing. One attaches to a number, the other attaches to an organisation.
| Verification | Certification | |
|---|---|---|
| Object | A specific claim or report | A management system or product |
| Output | Statement with a conclusion | Certificate with a scope |
| Validity | Per engagement, per year | Per certificate cycle |
| Standard | ISO 14064-3, ISO 14067 | ISO/IEC 17065, ISO 9001, ISO 14001 |
| Wrong word costs | Credibility | A tender disqualification |
A tender that asks for “an accredited verification” and receives “we are a certified body” gets rejected by an evaluator doing their job. The correct sentence names the standard and the accreditation: *verified in accordance with ISO 14067 by a body accredited to ISO/IEC 17065*.
We perform verification. We are not accredited yet, which means our statements are valid as professional opinions and not as accredited conformity assessment. Every document says that in the utility bar, not in a footnote.
That sentence is defensible because each clause can be checked: the standard exists, the statement reference resolves, and the method is published.
This note describes our method and commercial position. It is not a verification statement and carries no assurance. Under the two-track plan the certification conclusion is signed by a licensed partner; this site issues the method, the evidence grades and the register.