Master Technical Reviewer Rules Under ASC Farm and Feed CAR V1.0

Unified reviewer requirements under ASC Farm and Feed CAR V1.0

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council published version 1.0 of the ASC Farm and Feed Certification and Accreditation Requirements, known as the CAR, with an issue date of 1 May 2025 and an effective date of 1 August 2025. This document establishes a unified operational framework for Conformity Assessment Bodies conducting audits against the ASC Farm Standard and ASC Feed Standard. The CAR governs certification processes from application and audit planning through report technical review to final certification decisions.

A central element of this assurance framework is the technical review process defined in Part B, Section 5, supported by the auditor and reviewer competency matrices in Appendix 4. Quality managers, compliance leads and internal auditors at client facilities must understand these certifier requirements to anticipate how audit findings are evaluated. Technical reviewers act as an independent quality control gate within the certifier organization, ensuring that Lead Auditors gather reproducible evidence and justify non-conformity gradings before certificates are issued or maintained.

Independence rules and mandatory review scopes

Part B, Section 5 establishes strict rules regarding when technical reviews must occur and who is eligible to conduct them. Under Part B, Clause 5.9, technical reviews must be performed by a person or group of persons who were not directly involved in the audit process. Furthermore, Part A, Clause 2.1 and Footnote 5 mandate that key certifier personnel, including technical reviewers, must not conduct reviews or make certification decisions for any client to whom they provided consultancy within the preceding two years. Under Part B, Clause 6.1 and Footnote 32, the technical review and certification decision may be completed concurrently by the same individual, provided that person maintained complete independence from the audit.

Part B, Section 5 defines distinct technical review triggers across the three-year certification cycle:

• Draft initial and re-certification reports: Clause 5.8 mandates a technical review for all draft audit reports generated during initial certification and re-certification audits.
• Final initial and re-certification reports: Clause 5.8.1 requires a technical review for any revised content or additional details added to final reports following the draft review stage.
• Final surveillance audit reports: Clause 5.10 mandates a technical review for all final audit reports produced during annual surveillance audits.
• Impartiality and review timelines: Clause 5.12 permits clients to request a copy of the draft report prior to publishing, provided this request does not delay reporting timeframes established in Appendix 3 Table 3.2.

Qualification pathways for technical reviewers

Appendix 4, Table 4.3 sets out explicit qualification and competency requirements for technical reviewers. A note in Table 4.3 clarifies that required competencies may be demonstrated collectively across a review team rather than by a single individual, provided all criteria are satisfied across the team. For audits involving the ASC Feed Standard, reviewers must demonstrate specific technical and manufacturing competencies.

When evaluating social criteria under the ASC Feed Standard, technical reviewers must fulfill the social auditing competencies listed in Table 4.3 Item 5. Reviewers must have participated in at least five third-party social audits under recognized schemes such as Amfori BSCI, SEDEX SMETA, SA8000, or ASC social assessments, or completed twenty technical reviews of social criteria.

Audit report evaluation and certification decision workflows

During the technical review process, reviewers evaluate the draft audit report against five core quality criteria outlined in Part B, Clause 5.11. The reviewer confirms that the audit evidence is concise, clear, accurate, and reproducible under Clause 5.3, allowing a secondary individual reviewing the same records to reach an identical conclusion. Under Clause 5.4, Lead Auditors must address and resolve all technical issues raised by the reviewer before the final report is submitted to the ASC database.

When evaluating final audit reports, Clause 5.13 requires the technical reviewer to examine the client's submitted corrective action documentation. This evaluation covers root cause analyses, implemented corrections, corrective action plans, and supporting objective evidence. Certification Decision Makers evaluate the technical review outcome alongside audit evidence and stakeholder feedback under Part B, Clause 6.1.1. Under Part B, Clause 6.3, certifiers cannot make a positive certification decision if open major or critical non-conformities remain, or if open minor non-conformities lack approved extensions.

What to do now

• Verify reviewer competency records: Request confirmation from your Conformity Assessment Body that assigned technical reviewers fulfill Appendix 4 Table 4.3 competency criteria prior to audit report submission.
• Structure corrective action submissions: Ensure internal root cause analyses and corrective action evidence packs satisfy Part B Clause 5.13 requirements to prevent technical review rejections.

Reference documents

• ASC Farm and Feed Certification and Accreditation Requirements (CAR), V1.0, Part A Section 2, Part B Section 5, Part B Section 6, Appendix 3 Table 3.2, Appendix 4 Table 4.3