We are trying to improve a calibration method to meet 17025 standards, and given that the only standard describing the device we want to calibrate (a gyroscope) is very extensive and way beyond the scope of what we want to measure we're thinking of developing/modifying our own method.
Reading through 7.2 "Selection, Verification and Validation of Methods" as well as earlier parts of section 7, it seems that developing non standard methods is allowed as long as you correctly verify/validate them through means such as the systematic consideration of errors or interlaboratory comparison. However section 6.5 on metrological traceability states that a method should relate to some reference material (not relevant in our case) or some existing standard (like the one we would rather not follow) and be traceable through an unbroken chain of calibrations.
So my question is, would developing a method and validating it ourselves in the case where standards already exist still allow us to conform to 6.5?
Reading through 7.2 "Selection, Verification and Validation of Methods" as well as earlier parts of section 7, it seems that developing non standard methods is allowed as long as you correctly verify/validate them through means such as the systematic consideration of errors or interlaboratory comparison. However section 6.5 on metrological traceability states that a method should relate to some reference material (not relevant in our case) or some existing standard (like the one we would rather not follow) and be traceable through an unbroken chain of calibrations.
So my question is, would developing a method and validating it ourselves in the case where standards already exist still allow us to conform to 6.5?