ISO/IEC 24956:2026 – Information technology

ISO/IEC 24956:2026 addresses a specific gap in additive manufacturing quality work: the evaluation of 3D modelling software used to prepare printable models. Rather than judging the printed part, the document relies on phantoms — reference objects with known geometry — to measure how accurately and consistently the software performs. This page summarises the standard's recorded facts and places them in context for engineering and procurement audiences.

Standard Information

Phantom-based evaluation is the central concept of ISO/IEC 24956:2026. The document sets out an evaluation procedure and evaluation methods for judging the accuracy and precision of software that designs models intended for 3D printing. Published as a current international standard in September 2026, it belongs to the information technology domain developed through joint ISO and IEC technical work. Its field of application sits at the intersection of software quality and additive manufacturing pre-processing. - Designation: ISO/IEC 24956:2026
- Full title: Information technology - 3D printing and scanning - Phantom-based evaluation methods for 3D printing modeling software
- Status: Current
- Publication date: 2026-09-03
- ICS classification: 35, 35.080
- Technical committee: ISO/IEC JTC 1

Scope and Application

The document defines an evaluation procedure and evaluation methods for assessing the accuracy and precision of 3D modelling software used to design 3D printing models, and it does so with phantoms. A phantom, in this context, is a reference object with defined characteristics that serves as a known input to the software under evaluation. Because the geometry is known in advance, deviations introduced during modelling can be attributed to the software rather than to the printing process. Precision and accuracy are treated as the two performance dimensions of interest. Accuracy concerns how closely the model produced by the software corresponds to the intended reference, while precision concerns the consistency of results across repeated runs or conditions. The standard's procedure allows both dimensions to be examined in a structured, repeatable manner. One boundary deserves emphasis: the document is not intended to evaluate the 3D-printed product itself. Physical printing quality, machine calibration and material behaviour fall outside its remit. Users applying the standard are therefore assessing a software tool at the design stage, upstream of any printing operation.

Products and Materials Covered

The object of evaluation in ISO/IEC 24956:2026 is software, not hardware. Specifically, the standard applies to 3D modelling software for designing 3D printing models. This covers programs that create, prepare or transform digital geometry destined for additive manufacturing, where geometric fidelity at the design stage determines whether the downstream print matches intent. The ICS classification reinforces this placement. Class 35 covers information technology as a whole, and 35.080 covers software specifically. The reference in the title to 3D printing and scanning signals the broader technology field in which the software operates, but the title's operative scope is the modelling software itself, evaluated through phantom-based methods. Physical items appear only as evaluation aids. Phantoms — reference objects used as known inputs — and, where relevant, scanning equipment associated with their use, form part of the evaluation setup rather than the object being judged. No specific printer hardware, build material or filament type falls within the document's evaluation scope.

Testing and Compliance Considerations

When a laboratory evaluates modelling software against this type of standard, the work generally follows established type-testing logic. The phantom set defined by the evaluation procedure is processed by the software under controlled conditions, and the resulting models are compared against the reference geometry. Because the standard addresses accuracy and precision, test records normally cover both deviation from reference and repeatability of results. Documentation is central to credible outcomes. A typical evaluation report identifies the software version and configuration, the phantoms used, the evaluation conditions and the observed results, so that another party can reproduce the assessment. Procurement specialists can use such a report to compare candidate software tools on a common basis, and quality managers can attach it to supplier qualification files. Retest triggers deserve attention. A new software version, changed geometry-processing algorithms or altered configuration settings can affect accuracy and precision, so organisations commonly re-evaluate when such changes occur. Acceptance verification at delivery, periodic re-confirmation and retesting after upgrades are all consistent with general industry practice for software-based evaluation standards. Specific acceptance values, where needed, are agreed between the parties rather than assumed from the standard.

Related Standards and Series Context

The designation ISO/IEC 24956:2026 carries structural information in itself. The ISO/IEC prefix shows that the document is a joint product of ISO and IEC, developed through their combined technical committee, ISO/IEC JTC 1. The number 24956 places the document within the committee's numbering sequence for information technology work; no part structure is indicated, so the document stands as a single, whole standard rather than one part of a numbered series. The year suffix, 2026, identifies the edition year of publication — in this case 3 September 2026. Where a standard is revised in future, the year suffix changes while the base number is retained, which is how editions of the same work are distinguished. The record for this document shows no part or amendment designators, indicating a first-level structure without subdivisions. Readers who require the authoritative text should obtain it from official ISO and IEC distribution channels. This page is an interpretive overview for planning and procurement purposes; it does not reproduce, replace or distribute the document itself.