1. Assessment scene of Company S
Last December, Company S received the transition assessment to 2000 version. At that time, Mr. Z, assessor, said that the way of identification of document change in ISO9001: 2000 was changed and 2000 version requires for identifying changed portions directly on the documents by such ways of writing double bar on deleting portions or underline additional portions.
Company S had identified document changes by master lists on last page of each document. By this way, the company got the registration of ISO9001: 1994.
But the assessor said the way of identification has not become accepted, because the clause of " Where practicable, the nature of the change shall be identified in the document or the appropriate attachments in 1994 version was deleted in 2000 version and it meant attached master list (he might consider the lists as attachments referred in 1994 version) had not accepted in 2000 version. Therefore, he said only his direct identification method should be observed.

This problem is about the translation of c) clause of 4.2.3 in ISO90001: 2000.

2. My comment on the false translation of the way of identification of document changes
(1) False reason of the deleting
The deleted portion from 1994 version is that "Where practicable, the nature of the change shall be identified in the document or the appropriate attachments". But the assessor only focused on the latter parts of the sentence. In the former of the sentence it says, " shall be identified in the document". He might overlook the former portion. His way was to identify in document. Therefore, according to his way of the reasoning, his way of identifications is not acceptable, due to the deletion of the way of identification in the document in 2000 version.
He cut his own throat by his reasoning.

2) False correspondence
The requirement of c) in 4.2.3 of ISO9001: 2000 do not correspond to the requirement that where practicable, the nature of the change shall be identified in the document or the appropriate attachments. It rather corresponds to the requirement in 4.5.2 clause of in ISO9001: 1994 that a master list or equivalent document control procedure identifying the current revision status of documents shall be established. The word of "list" has been deleted in 2000 version, remaining more allowance for users.
The identification of nature of document changes is basically differs from the identification of document changes. The confusion the assessor had means he has not been an eligible assessor, even in 1994 version.

(3) Deficiency of double bar / underlining method
By this method sometimes you will find it difficult to read clearly, because with some changes there will be many double bars and underlines that disturb making documents legible.
Therefore, ISO9001: 1987 required that documents shall be re-issued after a practical number of changes have been made in 4.5.2 clause.
According to progress of IT, such an inconvenience method has gradually disappeared and the above requirement in 1987 version was deleted in 1994 version.

(4) Lack of a sense of alternatives in the assessor
The way of identification of document changes by master lists at the final page is one way of identifying in the documents, because master lists are parts of documents. The assessor might mistake the lists as the attachments referred in 1994 version.
There are several alternative ways to satisfy for identification of document changes required in ISO9001: 2000. The assessor's way is one of them and may be the worst way among the alternatives proved by ISO9000 history. He should not force uniformity of documentation as ISO9001: 2000 warns in 0.1 of Introduction. The selection of the alternatives is up to an organization.