ASA uses this process for documents that establish, recommend, interpret, or explain responsible practice. The procedure preserves a clear distinction among binding ASA requirements, standards, voluntary guidelines, technical specifications, positions, and educational resources.
Document classes
Code or requirement
A binding obligation within a stated membership or program scope. It uses “must” and identifies authority and enforcement.
ASA standard
A normative document with testable criteria developed through the enhanced process described on this page. Use of “standard” does not imply accreditation or government authority.
Voluntary guideline or best practice
A recommended approach. It uses “should” and remains nonbinding unless incorporated into another requirement.
Technical specification
A defined method, data format, test protocol, terminology set, or performance specification. The document states whether use is required or voluntary.
Position statement
ASA’s adopted view on a policy, regulatory, scientific, or market issue.
Educational resource
An explainer, checklist, FAQ, webinar, or summary. It can describe requirements but does not create them.
1. Proposal
A proposal defines the problem, affected audiences, existing requirements and standards, evidence of need, scope, exclusions, intended document class, likely participants, resources, timeline, and legal or competition considerations.
The designated authority approves, revises, defers, or declines the proposal. A proposed title does not determine the final document class.
2. Project charter and participation
An approved project receives a charter stating its purpose, authority, deliverables, participation model, chair, staff liaison, conflicts, confidentiality, decision rules, and maintenance plan. Participation should reflect relevant business, scientific, quality, regulatory, user, and other perspectives.
No single commercial interest should control an ASA standards project.
3. Evidence and drafting
The working group defines terms, reviews applicable law and authoritative work, evaluates evidence and operational constraints, distinguishes requirements from recommendations, records material alternatives, and drafts criteria that can be understood and applied.
Technical language should identify responsibility, records, exceptions, and measurement where appropriate. Protected third-party content requires permission and attribution.
4. Review
Review depth depends on consequence and document class. It may include:
- scientific or technical peer review;
- regulatory and legal review;
- affected-member consultation;
- public or affected-party comment;
- feasibility or pilot assessment;
- accessibility and plain-language review.
An ASA standard requires a recorded comment opportunity appropriate to scope unless an urgent interim document is justified. Comments receive a disposition such as accepted, accepted in part, declined with reason, out of scope, or editorial.
5. Approval
The approval package includes the final text, document class, scope, participation, conflicts, review record, material unresolved objections, technical and legal status, adoption authority, effective date, transition, and next review.
The Board approves binding requirements and ASA standards unless the governing documents validly delegate that authority.
6. Publication
Every controlled document displays:
- identifier, title, and document class;
- version and current status;
- adopted, published, and effective dates as applicable;
- scope, exclusions, and intended users;
- meaning of “must,” “should,” and “may”;
- approval authority;
- funding and relevant disclosures;
- references;
- correction and feedback route;
- next review date;
- supersession information.
7. Maintenance
The owner monitors material changes in law, science, technology, and practice. A document may be confirmed, revised, superseded, withdrawn, or archived. Urgent issues may require an interim notice before full revision.
8. Procedural concerns and appeals
A materially affected party may identify the procedure at issue, its interest, supporting information, and requested remedy. Review addresses whether the approved process was followed, relevant information was considered, conflicts were managed, and the stated authority acted. An appeal does not guarantee a preferred technical outcome.
Current work and participation
Project listings should identify the charter, stage, participation route, expected output, comment period, and contact. A project should not be announced until it has an owner and approved scope.
Review ASA technical documents
To comment on the method or a named project, submit process feedback.