Re: Calibration vs. Verification - Definitions
Yes, those were my interpretations based on reading in between the lines and my understanding of the subject.
In other words, you are looking for a specific document with all these words explained (when you talk about normative reference) so that others do not need to guess what it means. I am not sure if such a document exists?
What about definitions by and found in 'NIST' documents? Do you or can you accept them as 'the' interpretation?
I think we could benefit from a review of the question at hand, and some explanation on my part. I know that many here probably think I'm being nit-picky and pedantic, but...
Here is
the original statement from AndyN, which has now been split from this thread (thanks, Brad

):
... if anyone is making decisions about product or process 'acceptability' (does it meet a specification), then the equipment used should be calibrated or at least verified as operating correctly.
My response was
"Calibrated" and "verified as operating correctly" are the same thing.
ISO 9001-2000 (7.6)says that measurement devices used in making decisions must be
calibrated or verified at specified intervals, or prior to use, against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurement standards...
Note that (A) there is no explanation of the difference between "calibrated" and "verified" in the standard (or any reference I know of) and (B) in either case, it says that standards must be traceable.
Thence opened the floodgates.

This all has to do with definition of terms and normative references; both ideas are fundamentals in our profession. Ironically though, they seem to be among the most widely misunderstood or overlooked concepts. It boils down to this: if you use terms in your documentation (and this applies to everyone, including ISO) that may be subject to more than one definition, you must provide a definition that becomes the "court of last resort." That's what a "normative reference" is. If I provide a definition of a term in my quality manual, and the manual is duly approved, everyone else in the company is enjoined from creating their own definitions or interpretations
regardless of any commonly-accepted denotations. Dictionary denotations should be deviated from only when absolutely necessary, but when it's important that everyone singin' from the same hymnal, you do what you have to do to maintain clarity and order.
In the present case, insofar as the ISO-9001-2000 is concerned, "calibrated" and "verified" both
unambiguously mean that applicable devices must be compared to a traceable standard. Anyone who disagrees with this is reading something that ain't there. Furthermore, ISO provides
no normative reference which would lead us to believe that there is a substantive difference between
calibrating a device against a traceable standard and
verifying a device against a traceable standard. Furthermore, we know (or at least I hope we know) that
calibration is nothing more than the act of comparing something (
anything, not just a measurement device) to a standard. ISO-9001 expands the definition slightly to require traceability of the standard(s) used, but that expansion also applies to "verified."
Now--if someone can supply a traceable

normative reference that contradicts what I've said, I will gladly concede the matter and feel better for having learned something. When I say a
traceable normative standard, I mean one for which an unbroken trail exists between ISO-9001-2000 and the definitions. I'm not looking for someone's personal interpretation or opinion; this is a matter of black-and-white.
Finally, a word about why it's worth making an issue over something like this. This is a widely-referenced forum, and beyond terrific group of people we've come to know and respect, many people who never register and never post look to it for information. For all of us who post regularly, we need to do our best to make sure that the most accurate information possible is presented. Errors need to be corrected when they pop up in order to maintain the integrity of the system. There is nothing personal in this. I've made mistakes myself; we all do from time to time. But we owe it to everyone who comes here to do our best to make sure we provide good advice.
