The MASE V2024 Framework in 2026: Scoring, Audits and the Comité de Pilotage Decision

1 January 2026: V2014 leaves the audit framework

The rollout had three distinct stages. From September through December 2024, V2024 was available for preparation but could not yet be used to conduct an audit. During 2025, a company could choose between V2014 and V2024. Since 1 January 2026, the official announcement has specified V2024 alone for audits. Keeping that sequence in view prevents a practical error: testing current evidence against a grid that has left the audit system instead of checking which version actually applies.

The public working document is revision 7.0, September 2024 edition, and runs to 72 pages. On 24 September 2024, MASE reported that two elements in the first release had remained in their previous version. Archive the PDF and Excel audit grid with the date on which each file was downloaded. SSE leads, sites and the auditor can then work from the same corrected revision without reproducing the protected wording of the questions.

The announcement dated 27 August sets the rollout timetable. The page dated 24 September links to the corrected PDF and the updated Excel grid. These records serve different documentary purposes: one dates the version change, while the other identifies the working files. Record the source and revision of every item in the preparation file so that its provenance can be traced later.

What the 5,000 points actually add up to

V2024 retains five axes. For an initial audit, their published weights are 900, 800, 1,300, 1,100 and 900 points, which add up to 5,000. Their shares can be calculated as 18%, 16%, 26%, 22% and 18%, but the denominator is only the nominal total of the initial grid. These percentages describe how the points are distributed. They do not measure a company's conformity rate, its likelihood of certification or the term that might be awarded.

The grid distinguishes binary, variable and doubled variable scores. A binary score is either zero or the maximum. A variable score falls between zero and the maximum. Doubling is used only for renewal audits, where the nominal total is 6,000 points. No public source applies a uniform 20% increase across all five axes. To compare an initial audit with a renewal, record the scoring method for each element instead of applying a blanket uplift. Keep the audit context in the tracking sheet as well. Marking each value as initial or renewal prevents a doubled value from being compared with an initial value as though both used the same basis.

Recalculating the synoptic after neutralisation

The framework identifies no more than 38 elements that may be neutralised out of 267. That ratio counts elements with different weights. The resulting 14.2% describes only their share by number and says nothing about their share of the points. When a neutralisation is justified, its associated points are removed from the applicable scope. An entire chapter cannot be neutralised. The percentage shown in the synoptic must then use the points that remain as its denominator.

An internal table needs to preserve three separate values: the number of elements that may be neutralised, the total points still applicable and the percentage calculated from those points. Comparisons between audits, axes or entities remain intelligible only when those values stay attached to the result. None of them discloses the voting rule of the Comité de Pilotage. For every neutralisation, record the applicable points total, the justification and the date. The synoptic can then direct SSE work without being presented as a promise of certification.

Document review, fieldwork and the closing meeting

The published process combines a document review with one or more field audits. The document review examines the organisation as described and the material prepared to support it. Fieldwork tests that account against the application of the requirements and the effectiveness of the system. Documentary, quantitative, qualitative and field findings all illuminate the same system, so they must remain consistent through to the closing meeting. Before the visit, link each document to the locations, teams and practices the auditor may examine. That mapping exposes requirements whose application or effectiveness is still difficult to demonstrate on the ground.

The V2024 PDF says that the closing meeting covers, among other things, the scoring and synoptic, followed by the audit results, indicators and system maturity. The auditor's opinion is requested before the vote. The public IM5 audit protocol page, however, says that the detailed score grid is given neither to the company nor to the Comité and remains with the local MASE administration. The two public documents do not align fully on who receives that detailed grid. Keep the information discussed at the closing meeting separate from the grid itself, then confirm the document route with the local MASE administration.

Who gives the opinion and who votes on the term

The auditor presents an analysis and gives an opinion. The auditor does not certify the company. After considering the information available to it, the Comité de Pilotage deliberates and chooses between no certification and certification for one year or three years. The public framework provides no table that ties any of those outcomes automatically to a points total. Only the Comité de Pilotage makes that decision.

The public document also states that a one-year certification cannot be awarded more than twice in succession. It does not prescribe an automatic outcome for the next cycle. A useful preparation file presents four connected views: the score for the applicable scope, the indicators, the system's maturity and the qualitative material discussed at the closing meeting. Check that they tell a coherent story before that meeting, especially when a strong synoptic sits beside an adverse field signal or a deteriorating indicator.

At the closing meeting, the Comité de Pilotage considers the audit results, indicators, system maturity and the auditor's opinion. No published total predetermines its vote.