Who has to
sign it?

Because the purpose decides who may issue it. A report for your own information, a report for an insurer and a report required by law are three different things, and the last of those may be reserved to a body holding a specific approval. Quote first and ask later and you risk delivering a technically sound document that cannot be used for the one purpose it was bought for.

That accreditation attaches to specific examinations, methods or standards, not to a company in general. A body accredited for one method is not accredited for another by implication, so the right question is never whether a body is accredited but whether it is accredited for the method you need. A result produced outside the accredited scope is a technical opinion. It can be entirely correct and still not be an accredited result.

Not as an independent third party, no. The inspection standard distinguishes independent third-party inspection from inspection of your own organisation or your own supply, and that distinction limits how a report can be used. If we have been involved in a design, a supply or an installation, we disclose it before accepting the examination, and if independence is what you need, you need somebody else. Anyone willing to certify their own work is telling you something about the certificate.

No, and that matters in Belgium. The drawing up of plans and the supervision of works subject to a building permit are reserved to an architect, subject to the exceptions in the law, and an engineering office does not satisfy that requirement. So a project needing an architect still needs one. We can do the technical work alongside that appointment, not instead of it.

It describes the condition observed, by the method stated, at the time of the examination. It does not warrant future condition, remaining service life or fitness for purpose, and it does not cover concealed, inaccessible or undismantled parts that were not examined. Those exclusions are written in the report rather than left to be inferred, because the exclusions are the part that matters when something later fails.

No. We do not accept instructions conditional on reaching a stated conclusion, and that holds whoever is asking and whatever is riding on it. If an examination is worth having, it is worth having the answer the examination actually produces. If it finds a problem, we will tell you what has to be remedied and by whom, and we will mark the re-examination as a re-examination rather than quietly updating the original.