What the clause requires
Clause 8.6 is the gate before delivery. The organization has to implement planned arrangements, at the appropriate stages, to verify that the product and service requirements have been met, typically at goods-in, in process and at final inspection, and it must not release products and services to the customer until the planned arrangements have been satisfactorily completed. The word planned matters: the verification points are decided in advance, not improvised by whoever happens to be on shift.
There is one way out, and the standard states it plainly: release may happen earlier if it is approved by a relevant authority within the organization and, where applicable, by the customer. That covers real situations, such as an urgent shipment while a laboratory test is still running, or a service handed over before the final survey is complete. What the clause will not accept is that exception becoming the normal way of working, or being taken verbally by somebody with no defined authority to take it.
The release record has two mandatory elements: evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria, meaning the inspection report, the test certificate or the completed checklist with actual results, and traceability to the person who authorized the release. Auditors nearly always test this by picking one delivered order and asking to see the whole chain, from the acceptance criteria to the measured result to the name of whoever signed it off, and a blank release field ends the discussion immediately.
What the auditor asks to see
- Inspection plan defining what is verified, at which stage and against which acceptance criteria
- Inspection and test records showing actual results compared with the acceptance criteria
- Identification of the person who authorized release, by name, signature or system login
- Records of exceptional releases, approved by the relevant authority and by the customer where applicable
- Traceability between the inspection record and the batch or order actually delivered
Where companies most often get it wrong
- Product dispatched before the test result was available, with no formal approval
- Inspection report with no acceptance criteria, carrying only OK or approved
- No way to tell who released the batch, because the field is blank or unsigned
- Final inspection defined in the plan but skipped during peak periods to meet the schedule
- Service handed over to the customer with no verification recorded at all
Example of a nonconformity
- Requirement
- ISO 9001, 8.6: the documented information on the release of products and services shall include traceability to the person authorizing the release.
- Evidence
- Order 7781, dispatched on June 4, 2026, carries a completed final inspection report but no identification of who approved it; the released by field is blank on 4 of the 10 reports sampled.
- Finding
- There is no traceability to the person who authorized release for part of the delivered orders.
How to comply using PrismaBiz
Ready-made templates for this clause
Frequently asked questions
Does a service organization have to meet clause 8.6 as well?
Yes. Releasing a service means confirming it was performed as agreed before treating it as delivered, through a completion checklist, a site inspection or a formal customer acceptance. The format changes, the logic does not.
Who is allowed to release the product?
Whoever the organization defines as authorized. The standard does not require this to be the quality department, it requires the person to be identified in the record. Self-inspection by a qualified operator is perfectly acceptable.
Is releasing with a concession approved by the customer a nonconformity?
Not if it is recorded. Clause 8.6 allows release approved by a relevant authority and, where applicable, by the customer. The deviation itself still has to be handled as a nonconforming output under 8.7.