After you have submitted your results, there might be a need to submit revised data.  If the ILC-PT is currently On Site or you have not yet accepted your preliminary data, then you can easily submit revised data via the NAPT Customer Portal.


Step #1: Go to the Customer Portal | ILC-PT and find the ILC-PT you wish to submit revised data for.

Step #2: Click on the ILC-PT in question.  In this case, the AC-WATT-331



Step #3: Submit Your Revised Data

Click in the table under the measured value or uncertainty you wish to revise.  You can change one or all values.  Once you have updated the value, enter a rationale for the change.


NOTE: The rationale is required by 17025 and must explain why you are requesting the change in values.



Once you have updated the value, enter the rationale for change and upload Root Cause Analysis supporting documentation. Your ILC-PT will go directly into Technical Review.  The data will NOT appear in the portal immediately as a technical advisor must review the revised data as it is submitted.


When submitting a revision to data for a Metrology Proficiency Test (PT) that complies with ISO/IEC 17043 and ISO/IEC 17025 requirements, the rational provided should be clear, relevant, and verifiable.


The Rational for Change is needs to have a length of at least 100 characters and is a short summary; clearly state why the revision is necessary. This summary alone does not provide adequate objective evidence for the requested change and revised data will not be accepted. Additional objective evidence documenting the investigation into the error, including supporting objective evidence is required to be uploaded.


Types of objective evidence:


  1. Supporting Calculations or Documentation
    • Calculation Sheets: Screenshots or exported files showing updated calculations or formulas applied to derive the revised data.
    • Measurement Uncertainty Analysis: Updated uncertainty budgets, if applicable, with documented changes.
  2. Root Cause Analysis Documentation
    • A formal report summarizing the root cause of the error in the original submission (e.g., instrument drift, operator error, software bugs).
    • Evidence supporting the analysis, such as logs, error reports, or correspondence with relevant stakeholders.
  3. Corrective Action Evidence
    • Revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): If procedural errors were identified, include updated SOPs with changes clearly marked.
    • Training Records: Documentation proving additional training was conducted for personnel involved in the test.