“test report older than 12 months” — what to check before you pay for a retest

A phrase sellers search for after a compliance document is rejected. This guide walks through the checks that usually matter, the two figures that are easy to confuse, and the mistakes that lead to a second rejection. It does not tell you what your case means.

1. What this wording usually points to

When a marketplace rejects a document because a test report is “too old”, the underlying issue is generally one of two things: the issue date of the report falls outside the validity window the marketplace applies to that category, or the standard edition cited in the report is no longer the current one. These are different problems with different remedies, and they are often bundled together in a short automated message.

A third possibility is worth ruling out early: the report may be perfectly valid, but attached to the wrong case, the wrong parent ASIN, or submitted while a previous review is still open. In that situation a new report changes nothing.

2. Six things to check first

• The exact wording of your own notice, including the reference number and the stated deadline.
• The issue date on the report, and whether it falls inside the window stated in your notice.
• The standard edition written on the report. For example, ASTM F963-17 was superseded by F963-23; a report can be recent and still cite a withdrawn edition.
• Whether the certificate itself carries an expiry date.
• Whether the product, the materials, or the supplier changed after the report was issued. A change can invalidate an otherwise in-date report.
• Whether you hold the full report, not only the cover page or a screenshot of the first page.

3. The 12-month and 180-day figures

Seller documentation and community discussions refer to both a 12-month validity window and, for some categories, a 180-day window. We have not verified which one applies to a given marketplace, site, or category, and this page does not state a rule. The two figures are mentioned here only so you know to check the question rather than assume an answer.

4. Common mistakes

• Paying for a full retest immediately. If only the standard edition changed, a version-difference assessment or an updated declaration of conformity may be the relevant step. Whether that is acceptable is a question for the lab and the marketplace, not for this guide.
• Editing the report yourself. A corrected or re-issued report normally has to come from the issuing laboratory. Altered documents create a much larger problem than an expired one.
• Sending the cover page only. Reviewers commonly ask for the full report together with the lab's accreditation certificate and scope page.
• Assuming lab reputation covers scope. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is scoped: the scope page has to cover the specific test standard being relied on.
• Resubmitting the same file with a new name. A submission with no materially new information is commonly rejected and may count as an attempt.

5. Before you resubmit

If this is not the first rejection, first confirm the state of the queue: how many times was the file submitted in the last 30 days, is a case still open, and was a follow-up clicked while a review was in progress. Where the same reason keeps returning, the submission behaviour may be the actual blocker, and changing the document will not break the loop. Stop adding submissions until the current review closes, then send one complete package.

6. Where to verify

• Your own marketplace notice and the Account Health / case log, for the wording, reference and deadline.
• The current official help pages for your marketplace and site, for document validity and accepted labs.
• The issuing laboratory, for a revised report, a version-difference statement, and the scope page.
• The standards body or the official page listing the current standard edition.

Rules and standard editions change. Content compiled 2026-11-14; re-check within 30-60 days.