ETSI TS 103 701 test evidence workflow

ETSI TS 103 701 defines the Device Under Test as the specific consumer IoT device that is assessed against ETSI EN 303 645 provisions. The evidence workflow should therefore begin with a precise DUT record before anyone collects policies, test reports, screenshots, or external certificates.

The DUT record should identify the product boundary, software version, offered interfaces, relevant user documentation, and the associated-service relationships that matter to the assessed functionality. TS 103 701 assumes the DUT is in live operation for assessment purposes and that the test laboratory is not in control of the associated services belonging to the DUT, so evidence should explain how those dependencies are observed or documented.

The ICS is where the Supplier Organization states which EN 303 645 provisions are claimed for the DUT. Keep this separate from internal control language: the support decision should be tied to the EN 303 645 provision, while the detail field explains the implemented measure, non-support reason, or not-applicable rationale.

EN 303 645 Annex B provides the pro forma context for support values and detail. TS 103 701 then requires the SO to complete the ICS correctly and requires the Test Laboratory to validate the ICS, including checking mandatory provisions, conditional provisions, feature-dependent provisions, and N/A claims against the available information.

The IXIT is not a new EN 303 645 obligation. Under TS 103 701, it is the extra implementation and assessment-environment information that enables the Test Laboratory to perform appropriate test activities. It is the basis for grey-box testing and provides design details for the TL.

Complete IXIT entries for provisions claimed as Yes in the ICS. TS 103 701 says the SO is not required to complete all IXIT entries, but the entries that are necessary for claimed provisions need to be exhaustive and correct. If the information is incomplete or insufficient for proper test execution, an inconclusive verdict may result.

TS 103 701 test cases typically distinguish conceptual and functional aspects. Conceptual assessment checks conformity of the IXIT against the requirements of the provision, while functional assessment checks DUT functionality, associated-service relations, or development and management processes against the provision requirements.

A useful evidence workflow therefore has two lanes. The conceptual lane holds design explanations, process descriptions, public user information, IXIT entries, and documented rationale. The functional lane holds observations from the DUT, interface behavior, test outputs, update behavior, publication checks, or process evidence that demonstrates the implementation behaves as claimed.

TS 103 701 defines overall verdicts, test group verdicts, and test case verdicts. For workflow purposes, this means an evidence pack should not stop at gathered documents; it should show whether each claimed provision has enough material for the corresponding test group and whether the result is pass, fail, inconclusive, or still open.

The overall verdict depends on a valid ICS and the verdicts for provisions claimed as Yes. A PASS requires the ICS to be valid and every provision claimed as Yes in the ICS to have a PASS test group verdict. A FAIL can result from an invalid ICS or from at least one claimed provision receiving a FAIL test group verdict. An INCONCLUSIVE result covers situations where no fail criterion is met but at least one claimed provision has an inconclusive test group verdict.

TS 103 701 allows existing security certifications or third-party evaluations of parts of the DUT to be used partially as evidence to reduce assessment effort. That is not the same as a blanket EN 303 645 conformance claim. The SO has to announce the evidence in the addressed ICS detail field and provide the certification, certification details, test reports, or other information needed for verification.

The Test Laboratory still examines whether the external evidence is adequate for the corresponding test group. TS 103 701 requires review of scope against the test group objective, whether the test activities meet each test purpose in the group, and whether the test depth or evaluation assurance level is appropriate to the level addressed by the test group.

Use this as the operating sequence for an assessment-preparation tracker: Step | Owner | Evidence object | Decision gate.

1 | Supplier Organization | DUT identification record | Is the assessed product boundary specific enough for the TL to plan tests?

2 | Provision owner | EN 303 645 ICS row | Is the support decision Yes, N, or N/A with the required detail or rationale?

3 | Evidence owner | IXIT entry or referenced document | Is the information exhaustive and correct for each provision claimed as Yes?

4 | Test owner or TL | Conceptual and functional test plan | Are methods, tools, conditions, and instructions adequate for the DUT and IXIT?

5 | Assessment owner | Test case, test group, and overall verdict record | Is the result pass, fail, inconclusive, or blocked by missing evidence?

6 | External evidence owner | Certificate, third-party report, or evaluation record | Does the evidence satisfy the TS 103 701 scope, test-purpose, and depth checks?