Direct answer: A measurement-instrument and calibration-capability page cannot just say "advanced testing equipment, calibrated regularly." It should state which instruments fall under compulsory verification, what verification and calibration each mean, how the interval is set, how traceability runs, whether the company's highest measurement standard is assessed, whether the in-house lab holds CNAS accreditation and over what scope, what a certificate must contain, how out-of-tolerance and suspension are handled, how the register and labels are managed, and how third-party calibration bodies are selected. Otherwise, when an auditor asks "when was this caliper last calibrated, where is the certificate, how did you trace the batch affected by the out-of-tolerance gauge," the answer is a drawer search.
This guide is for quality, metrology, equipment, process, procurement, supplier-management, and website teams at manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby industrial areas. It explains how to build and accept a measurement and calibration capability page. Information is current to 2026-11-02. It is a review of public regulations and project practice, not metrology, calibration, accreditation, or legal advice; specific compulsory verification scope, intervals, standard assessment, CNAS scope, and customer requirements depend on current rules, the market regulator, the accreditation body, and the contract.
Verification and calibration are not the same: verification is legal metrology, judged against verification regulations and issued as a verification certificate; calibration is traceability, giving measurement results and uncertainty. Within compulsory verification scope, instruments may not be used without an application or if they fail; outside that scope, users must still verify periodically themselves or send instruments to a verification body. CNAS accreditation is voluntary, not an administrative licence, and its scope is defined by the certificate annex—never write "everything is accredited."
How does the metrology page relate to COA, material compliance, maintenance, and supplier-onboarding pages?
The COA page answers "what was tested on this batch and what were the results"; the material-compliance page answers "does it meet RoHS/REACH"; the maintenance page answers "how equipment is serviced"; the supplier-onboarding page answers "how we are audited"; the metrology page answers "why the test data can be trusted"—are instruments controlled, traceable, certified, and what happens when one drifts out of tolerance. Metrology is the foundation under the data: if the foundation moves, the numbers on the COA do not stand.
The common break is: calipers, micrometers, balances, pressure gauges, and thermometers are used straight out of the box with no register; compulsory-verification instruments are neither filed nor sent for verification; calibration certificates carry only a conclusion, with no uncertainty or basis; an in-house lab displays "CNAS" but cannot produce its accreditation scope; an out-of-tolerance gauge is put back into use and shipped batches are never traced; a third-party calibration body is chosen without checking its scope, and customers reject the report. A page that states scope, interval, certificates, out-of-tolerance handling, and accreditation boundaries gives the audit something to check.
| Page/entry | Answers | Audience | Cannot replace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metrology page | Scope, verification/calibration, traceability, certificates, OOT | Quality, customer audit | Register and floor labels |
| COA page | Batch test items, results, sampling | Customer, quality | Whether instruments are controlled |
| Material compliance | RoHS/REACH substances and reports | Customer, engineering | Calibration status of test equipment |
| Maintenance page | Inspection, servicing, response | Equipment, production | Periodic verification of instruments |
| Supplier onboarding | Qualifications, capacity, audit questionnaire | Procurement, customer | On-site metrology evidence |
This page map is editorial; the compulsory verification and verification regime is in Articles 9 and 10 of the Metrology Law.
Which instruments require compulsory verification?
Under Article 9 of the Metrology Law, three categories are subject to compulsory verification: public measurement standards; the highest measurement standards used by departments and by enterprises/institutions; and working measuring instruments used for trade settlement, safety protection, medical and health care, or environmental monitoring that are listed in the compulsory verification catalogue. Instruments within scope may not be used if verification has not been applied for as required or if they fail. Other standards and working instruments outside the scope must still be verified periodically by the user or sent to another verification body.
"We have no trade settlement" does not mean no compulsory-verification instruments: pressure gauges, instruments tied to safety protection, environmental monitoring equipment, and some medical/safety instruments may fall within scope depending on use and catalogue entries. Users of compulsory-verification instruments must register them, file with the county-level metrology department, and apply to its designated verification body for periodic verification; where local verification is unavailable, apply to the next level. Use the current SAMR catalogue, not a list from years ago.
| Category | Compulsory? | What to do | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public measurement standard | Yes | Assess, certify, verify periodically | No certificate |
| Enterprise highest standard | Yes | Assess before use, verify periodically | Used before assessment |
| Trade/safety/medical/environment + listed | Yes | Register, file, designated periodic verification | Not filed, not sent |
| Other working instruments | No (still periodic) | Self-verify or send out | Used unmanaged |
| Calibration (non-verification) | Per customer/system | Traceability, certificate, recalibration | Confused with verification |
Scope is in Article 9 of the Metrology Law; filing and periodic verification are in Article 5 of the Compulsory Verification Measures.
What is the difference between verification and calibration?
Verification is a legal-metrology activity: following the national verification system and verification regulations, it decides whether an instrument conforms, issuing a verification certificate, a conformity mark, or a result notice if it fails. Calibration is a traceability activity: under agreed conditions it establishes the relationship between the instrument's indication and the value reproduced by a measurement standard, usually reporting results and uncertainty so the user can judge fitness for purpose. Verification gives a legal conclusion; calibration generally does not declare pass/fail unless a decision rule is agreed.
If a customer asks for "a calibration report" and receives a verification certificate—or the reverse—it may be rejected. The right approach: check the instrument's use and the customer requirement. Compulsory-verification instruments need a verification certificate; where the customer's system or product standard requires calibration, provide a calibration certificate with uncertainty; if both are required, provide both. The page can explain the difference, the applicable scenarios, and the certificate formats, saving sales and customers a round of explanation.
| Dimension | Verification | Calibration | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Legal metrology, statutory | Traceability, per agreement/system | Treated as the same |
| Basis | Verification system and regulations | Calibration specification/method, customer | No basis stated |
| Outcome | Pass/fail, certificate or notice | Results and uncertainty, usually no pass/fail | Only "OK" |
| Interval | Per regulations and body | Per risk, drift, usage | Copy "one year" |
| Use | Compulsory scope, legal requirements | System, customer, internal quality control | Calibration where verification is required |
Verification requirements are in Article 10 of the Metrology Law and Article 9 of the Compulsory Verification Measures; calibration wording follows accreditation rules and the contract.
How should the calibration interval be set?
The compulsory verification interval is set by the designated verification body according to the verification regulations—not by the company. For instruments outside compulsory scope, the enterprise must establish verification management rules, an instrument list, and verification intervals, and ensure periodic verification; calibration intervals are set by usage frequency, environment, drift history, instrument criticality, historical calibration data, and customer/system requirements, with adjustment rules written into the procedure. Shorter is not always better, and "one year for everything" is not a policy.
"Annual calibration" is the most common and most easily challenged practice: high-frequency, harsh-environment, or safety-critical instruments may need shorter intervals; low-risk, stable instruments may be extended, but only with data. Interval changes need evidence: historical results, intermediate checks, drift trends, repair records, usage frequency. The page can say "adjusted by risk and data," but must not hard-code "all one year" or promise extension without data.
| Factor | Effect on interval | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation | Compulsory verification per regulations and body | Certificate | Self-set interval |
| Usage | High frequency shorter; low frequency assessed | Usage records | One year for all |
| Environment | Heat, dust, vibration, corrosion shorten | Site records | Ignored |
| Drift history | Repeat OOT or drift shortens | Historic certificates | No trend review |
| Criticality | Critical/safety-related stricter | Control plan | No grading |
| Customer/system | Contract or system governs | Contract/procedure | Customer ignored |
Interval rules are in Article 6 of the Compulsory Verification Measures and Article 12 of the Implementing Rules; calibration intervals follow risk and data.
How should the traceability chain and measurement standards be explained?
The chain must run back to the national measurement standards: working instrument → the enterprise's highest measurement standard → (assessed) → public measurement standard/national standard. An enterprise establishing its highest standard must apply to the metrology department at the same level as its competent department for assessment, may use it only after obtaining a certificate, and must file it with the competent department. Use also requires verification conformity, suitable environment, competent custodians/users, and a complete management system. The page can show a traceability diagram and state who verifies/calibrates each level and how certificates are numbered.
"Our equipment is imported" does not mean traceability is complete: imported instruments also need calibration/verification, and certificates must trace to the next level. Auditors typically check: the highest standard's assessment certificate, the standard's periodic verification, environmental control for storage, who is authorised to operate, and whether intermediate checks are done. The website need not publish every certificate, but should state that the highest standard is assessed, standards are traceable on schedule, and certificates are available on request, with a contact route.
| Level | What to explain | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| National standard | End of traceability | — | Cannot explain |
| Public standard | Established/assessed by statutory body | Certificate | None |
| Enterprise highest | Assessment, filing, periodic verification | Assessment certificate | Not assessed |
| Working instruments | Verification/calibration, labels, register | Certificate/label | No register |
| Intermediate check | Stability check between calibrations | Check record | Not done |
Highest-standard assessment is in Articles 7 and 10 of the Implementing Rules; the verification system is in Article 10 of the Metrology Law.
How should the in-house lab and CNAS accreditation be described?
Separate three things: "we have a lab," "the lab is CNAS-accredited," and "the accreditation scope covers which items." CNAS accreditation is voluntary third-party accreditation under CNAS-CL01 (identical to ISO/IEC 17025), and the scope is defined by the certificate annex—items, parameters, ranges, and locations. The site may say "XX lab is CNAS-accredited (registration No. XXX)," but must state the scope; it must not turn "accredited" into "all tests accredited," and must not call accreditation an administrative licence or official mandatory certification.
Auditors cross-check: is the certificate valid, is the registration number searchable, does the scope cover the report items, is the accreditation symbol used correctly, are authorised signatories within scope, and are instruments at the accredited site. Issuing a report with the symbol outside scope is a red line for the accreditation body and undermines the whole report in the customer's eyes. The page should offer a "scope summary + how to request the full annex," not just a cover image.
| Statement | Acceptable? | What to add | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| "This lab is CNAS-accredited" | Yes, with scope and number | Annex/scope summary | Cover only |
| "All items are accredited" | Usually no | Item-by-item check | Over-scope claim |
| "CNAS certification/official certification" | Inaccurate | Use "accreditation" | Confusing terms |
| "Reports accepted for export/arbitration" | Use cautiously, per customer/country | State applicability | Absolute promise |
| "Calibration capability covers range XX" | Yes, if matching the annex | Range/uncertainty | Verbal exaggeration |
CNAS basis and scope are on the CNAS laboratory accreditation page and CNAS-CL01 (identical to ISO/IEC 17025).
What must a calibration or test certificate contain?
A certificate acceptable to customers and auditors should contain: a unique certificate number and page numbers; client and instrument user; instrument name, model, serial number, manufacturer; calibration/verification basis (regulation or specification number); date and environmental conditions; measurement standards used and their traceability; indication, standard value, error/correction at each point; measurement uncertainty (calibration); conclusion or recalibration date/recommended interval; signatures of the technician, reviewer, and approver, plus the body's seal. A verification certificate also states the verification conclusion and validity.
The usual defects: only "conforming," with no data or uncertainty; the instrument number does not match the physical item; the basis cites a superseded version; environmental conditions are blank; the signatory is a salesperson; the certificate date is later than shipment. The page can provide a "certificate element checklist" and a redacted sample, so customers know what to expect and the lab has one template. The sample must be redacted—no real customer or instrument numbers.
| Element | What to include | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification | Certificate number, page, body details | Certificate | No number |
| Instrument | Name, model, serial, manufacturer | Register | Mismatch |
| Basis | Regulation/specification and version | Controlled document | Superseded version |
| Conditions | Date, temperature, humidity | Raw record | Blank |
| Data | Indication, standard, error/correction, uncertainty | Raw record | Conclusion only |
| Conclusion/interval | Verification conclusion or recalibration date | Certificate | No validity |
| Signatures | Technician, reviewer, approver, seal | Authorisation | Incomplete |
These elements are editorial; verification certificate requirements are in Article 9 of the Compulsory Verification Measures, and calibration certificates follow accreditation rules and the contract.
How should out-of-tolerance, damage, and suspension be handled?
When an instrument is out of tolerance, damaged, expired, or has a broken seal: first stop using it and label it (out-of-service/forbidden), isolate it, and prevent misuse; second assess impact—which products/batches were tested with it since the last conforming calibration, and whether re-test, rework, recall, or customer notification is needed; third repair/adjust and re-verify or recalibrate before returning to use; fourth record the whole process and analyse the cause. Do not quietly adjust an out-of-tolerance instrument and keep using it, and do not mark "suspended" in the register while the conforming label stays on the instrument.
Auditors care most about traceability: when it went out of tolerance, which batches were affected, how it was handled, and whether customers were notified. The page can state "out-of-tolerance instruments are stopped, impact assessed, and customers notified where necessary"—that builds more trust than "advanced equipment." For compulsory-verification instruments used in safety or trade, an out-of-tolerance condition may also carry legal consequences; handle it carefully and consult the market regulator where needed.
| Step | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stop use | Label, isolate, lock in system | Suspension record | Kept in use |
| Impact assessment | Find batches since last conforming | Test records | No trace |
| Disposition | Re-test, rework, recall, notify | Disposition record | Register edited only |
| Repair/recalibrate | Re-verify/calibrate after repair | New certificate | Adjust and use |
| Root cause | Why it drifted, how to prevent | Analysis report | No analysis |
| Restore | Remove suspension label only after conformity | Restore record | Label confusion |
This process is editorial; use of non-conforming compulsory-verification instruments is addressed in Articles 9 and 25 of the Metrology Law.
How should the register, labels, and floor management work?
The register should contain: instrument number, name/model, serial number, department/location, use, verification/calibration status, last date, next due, certificate number, and owner. Floor labels should make "conforming/limited/out of service" obvious at a glance, with number and validity; calibration labels and verification marks should not be mixed. Instruments need suitable storage conditions, a custodian, loan/return records, and intermediate checks for critical items.
Auditors typically do three things on the floor: pull one instrument, check the label, register, and certificate; ask the operator "how often is this calibrated, what if it drifts"; and check whether suspended instruments are genuinely isolated. A beautiful register fails if labels are expired and certificates cannot be found. The website need not publish the register, but can state "one file per instrument, label control, due-date alerts, intermediate checks," so the customer knows the mechanism exists.
| Item | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Register | Number, location, status, due date, certificate | Register/system | Stale spreadsheet |
| Labels | Conforming/limited/out of service, number and validity | Photos | Expired label |
| Environment | Temperature, humidity, vibration, cleanliness, storage | Records | Left anywhere |
| Custody/loan | Custodian, loan record, return check | Loan log | Anyone takes it |
| Intermediate check | Stability check between calibrations | Check record | Not done |
| Due alert | Advance warning, avoid expired use | System/email | Noticed at expiry |
This floor practice is editorial; the instrument list and intervals are required by Article 12 of the Implementing Rules.
How should third-party calibration and verification bodies be selected?
Check qualification and scope first: compulsory verification must be performed by a verification body established or authorised by a county-level or higher metrology department; for calibration, check whether the accreditation scope covers your instrument, range, and uncertainty, whether its standards are traceable, whether certificates are well-formed, and whether it can serve your location. Then check delivery: turnaround, on-site or send-in, expedite, loss/damage handling, and data confidentiality. Price is not the only factor—a cheap certificate the customer rejects is worth nothing.
"Has a CNAS mark" does not mean "can calibrate anything": check the annex for items, ranges, and uncertainty, especially for high-precision, wide-range, or special-medium instruments. Keep evaluation records for outsourced calibration: qualification documents, scope, capability evidence, service records, and exception handling. The page can say "calibration is provided by bodies with the appropriate qualification," but must not say "all done by CNAS-accredited labs" unless every instrument is within scope.
| Criterion | What to check | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory qualification | Compulsory verification needs a statutory/authorised body | Authorisation | Using an ordinary calibration firm |
| Scope | Items, ranges, uncertainty covered | Certificate annex | Mark only |
| Traceability | Standards trace to the next level | Standard certificates | Not provided |
| Certificate quality | Data, uncertainty, signatures, seal | Sample | Conclusion only |
| Service | Turnaround, on-site, expedite, transport | Contract/SLA | Delays |
| Confidentiality/liability | Data protection, loss/damage liability | Contract terms | Not agreed |
Selection is editorial; designation of compulsory verification bodies is in Articles 3 and 5 of the Compulsory Verification Measures.
What should the page say, and what must not be published?
A public page should include: instrument scope and categories, the difference between compulsory verification and calibration, intervals and basis, a traceability diagram, highest-standard assessment status, in-house lab and CNAS scope, certificate elements, out-of-tolerance handling, third-party body management, and a route to request audit documents. Do not publish: the full instrument register, customer names and batches, real certificate numbers and signatory details, unredacted calibration data, or internal nonconformity and recall details. Redacted samples and "available for audit on request" are appropriate.
The page exists to make customers trust the data and give audits something to check—not to prove "the most advanced equipment." Wording must be precise: "compulsory verification per regulations," "calibration results include uncertainty," "CNAS scope per the certificate annex"—not "all instruments exempt forever" or "all reports internationally recognised." If there is no CNAS lab, say "calibration is outsourced to qualified bodies"; do not imply otherwise.
| Module | What to write | Evidence/asset | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/categories | Compulsory/non-compulsory/calibration | Register summary | "Advanced equipment" only |
| Verification/calibration | Definition, basis, outcome, interval | Procedure | Mixed wording |
| Traceability | Chain, highest-standard assessment | Assessment certificate | No diagram/evidence |
| Lab/accreditation | CNAS or not, scope, number | Certificate annex | Over-scope claim |
| Certificates | Element list, redacted sample | Sample | Customer data inside |
| OOT/suspension | Stop, assess, trace, notify | Process document | Not stated |
| Request route | Audit document request, contact | Form | No route |
| Links | COA, material compliance, supplier onboarding, inspection visit | Page test | Broken links |
These modules are editorial; public scope, customer data, and wording follow confidentiality requirements and quality/legal advice.
Go-live acceptance checklist
Ten checks: instrument scope, compulsory verification, verification/calibration distinction, interval basis, traceability and standard assessment, CNAS scope, certificate elements, out-of-tolerance handling, register/labels, and third-party bodies plus request route. Each needs an owner, evidence, and review date. The pass condition is not "the page says regularly calibrated," but that an auditor can follow the page to the register, certificate, scope, and out-of-tolerance record.
Before go-live, take three instruments through: one compulsory-verification, one internally calibrated, one just suspended for out-of-tolerance. Starting from the page, can you find the certificate, judge the interval, explain the impact, and obtain the audit documents? Any step that fails is a gap in the page or the process.
| Check | Pass condition | Evidence | If it fails |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Compulsory/non-compulsory/calibration defined | Register summary | Add categories |
| Compulsory verification | Catalogue, filing, designated periodic, no non-conforming use | Filing/certificate | Verify |
| Verification/calibration | Nature, basis, outcome, interval distinguished | Procedure/certificate | Add explanation |
| Interval | Regulation/risk/data/customer | Procedure/records | Add basis |
| Traceability | Highest standard assessed, standards traceable, intermediate checks | Certificate/records | Assess |
| CNAS | Status, scope, number, symbol use | Certificate annex | Remove over-scope |
| Certificate | ID/instrument/basis/conditions/data/uncertainty/signatures | Sample | Fix template |
| Out-of-tolerance | Stop, assess, trace, notify, recalibrate | Disposition record | Add process |
| Register/labels | One file per instrument, status label, due alerts | Floor/system | Build register |
| Bodies/route | Qualification and scope, request route, links work | Contract/page test | Change body/fix links |
This checklist is editorial; specific verification, calibration, accreditation, and records follow the law, market regulator, accreditation body, and customer requirements.
Who should read this, who should not, and what decisions does it support?
It suits manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby areas with an in-house lab, inspection processes, export business, or customer factory-audit requirements—especially equipment, auto parts, electronics, medical devices, materials, and precision machining; it also suits teams preparing for customer audits, system certification, or CNAS accreditation. It does not suit businesses with no measuring instruments, pure trading companies, or teams wanting one page to replace metrology services.
Read it if you are in quality, metrology, equipment, process, procurement, supplier management, or a website vendor; you are building a metrology page, cleaning up the register, preparing for a customer audit, applying for CNAS, or selecting a calibration body; or you need to answer "what needs compulsory verification, how is the interval set, is the certificate enough, what if it drifts, can we claim CNAS." Skip it if you treat "calibrated regularly" as a slogan without a register, you write CNAS accreditation as official certification, or you want a page promising "all reports internationally recognised." It supports self-review of scope, verification/calibration, intervals, traceability, accreditation, certificates, out-of-tolerance, register, and body selection.
Lingyi Information is a website development and enterprise AI project provider, not a metrology body, calibration laboratory, accreditation body, or market regulator. This article is not a substitute for metrology, calibration, accreditation, or legal advice. Changzhou projects are delivered remotely or on site as confirmed per project; Lingyi is one candidate, does not claim a local office or team, and does not promise audit outcomes, accreditation, conversion, or inquiries.
FAQ
Are verification and calibration the same?
No. Verification is legal metrology: it judges conformity against the verification system and regulations and issues a certificate or a result notice. Calibration is traceability: it reports results and uncertainty and usually does not declare pass/fail. Compulsory-verification instruments need a verification certificate; where the customer or system requires calibration, provide a calibration certificate. They are not interchangeable.
Which instruments require compulsory verification?
Public measurement standards, enterprise highest measurement standards, and working instruments used for trade settlement, safety protection, medical and health care, or environmental monitoring that are listed in the compulsory verification catalogue. Instruments in scope may not be used without an application or if they fail; users must register, file with the county-level metrology department, and apply to the designated body. Use the current catalogue.
Can we set the calibration interval ourselves?
The compulsory verification interval is set by the verification body per the regulations; for non-compulsory instruments the enterprise must set management rules, an instrument list, and intervals; calibration intervals may be set by usage, environment, drift history, criticality, and customer requirements, but must be supported by procedure and data. Extending an interval requires historical calibration and intermediate-check evidence.
Is a CNAS certificate enough?
No. Check whether the accreditation scope covers your instrument, items, ranges, and uncertainty; whether the certificate is valid; whether the symbol is used correctly; and whether the authorised signatory is within scope. A report issued with the symbol outside scope may be rejected by both the customer and the accreditation body. The scope is defined by the certificate annex.
The customer wants a calibration report, but we only have a verification certificate. What now?
First confirm the customer requirement and the instrument's use: compulsory-verification instruments get a verification certificate; where the customer's system requires calibration, add calibration with uncertainty; where both are required, provide both. Do not present a verification certificate as a calibration report, and do not replace measurement data with a one-word "conforming." Follow the contract and quality agreement.
Can the website say "all instruments are calibrated"?
Not advisable. State the scope: which are compulsory verification, which are calibration, which are outsourced, how intervals are set, and how certificates are provided. "All instruments calibrated" is easy to contradict and impossible to prove; "verification/calibration is applied by instrument category, certificates available for audit" is more defensible.
One-sentence takeaway
A Changzhou manufacturer's measurement and calibration capability page should not sell "advanced equipment, regular calibration." It should turn compulsory-verification scope, the verification/calibration distinction, interval basis, traceability and highest-standard assessment, CNAS scope, certificate elements, out-of-tolerance suspension and traceability, register and labels, and third-party body selection into a verifiable checklist—so an auditor can follow the page to the evidence.
Method and limitations
This is a review of public regulations and project practice, not a compliance certification or technical opinion on any company, instrument, calibration, accreditation, or audit. No undisclosed customer registers, certificates, audit reports, or calibration data were used. Categories, intervals, certificate elements, processes, and the acceptance checklist are editorial suggestions, not metrology, calibration, accreditation, or legal conclusions. Specific compulsory-verification scope, intervals, standard assessment, CNAS scope, and customer requirements depend on current rules, the market regulator, the accreditation body, the contract, and company policy.
Sources and scope
Information is current to 2026-11-02. The following are public official/primary pages; their scope, version, and wording control.
- Metrology Law of the PRC (adopted 1985; fourth amendment 27 December 2017): Fujian Provincial Administration for Market Regulation (NPC text reprint). Compulsory verification scope and prohibition on using non-conforming instruments (Art. 9), verification system and regulations (Art. 10), verification bodies and personnel assessment (Art. 20), disputes resolved by verification data (Art. 21), assessment of bodies providing notarised data (Art. 22), legal liability (Art. 25).
- Measures for the Administration of Verification of Working Measuring Instruments Subject to Compulsory Verification: Fujian Provincial Administration for Market Regulation (State Council text reprint). Definition and designated periodic verification (Art. 2), designation of bodies (Art. 3), registration, filing, and periodic verification (Art. 5), interval determination (Art. 6), prohibition on use (Art. 7), certificates and result notices (Art. 9).
- Implementing Rules for the Metrology Law of the PRC: Shanghai Administration for Market Regulation. Conditions for using measurement standards (Art. 7), assessment of public standards (Art. 8), assessment and filing of enterprise highest standards (Art. 10), application for compulsory verification (Art. 11), enterprise facilities and interval management (Art. 12).
- China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment (CNAS), laboratory accreditation: CNAS website. CNAS accredits laboratories voluntarily under CNAS-CL01 (identical to ISO/IEC 17025), and the scope is defined by the accreditation certificate annex.