###### Abstract
The interaction requires multiple pieces of knowledge related to the user: not only those related to the characteristics of the person for whom a product is designed, but also those that provide information on user preferences and expectations. In this context, the user becomes a fundamental element of the design process. Hence, it is easy to understand how a design focused solely on process and technological requirements can hinder the benefits of these wearable devices. In [18], which identified great variability in the variables and experimental setups when assessing lower limb exoskeletons, a selection of proper Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) from the reviewed papers was obtained and divided into three main categories: \"Goal-Level\", \"Kinematic-Kinetic\", and \"Human-Robot Interaction\". Similarly, ref. [19] stated that current methods suffer from great variability in tests, protocols, subjects, variables, and setup conditions, hindering a clear and coherent analysis of the Physical Human-Exoskeleton Interaction (pHEI). A proper study of the pHEI could represent a crucial step forward in the field of safety evaluation in wearable robots. Some users reported excessive interface pressure at the points of contact between the exoskeleton and the body, which may lead to an overall perception of discomfort during use [20; 21]. Additionally, some studies are questioning the overall impact of exoskeleton use on the health and safety of the workers [22]. There is limited evidence on the long-term effects of these devices on the health of workers, i.e., the deconditioning of the muscles after a prolonged period of use and the physical demands on other body regions, e.g., due to a variation in the load distribution during MMH, may result in further potential risks [5; 23]. Also, no standardized guidelines or protocols are available for testing and evaluating the impact of occupational exoskeletons on industrial workers. The lack of specific safety standards and technical problems have been identified as obstacles in the widespread practical use of exoskeletons in industry [16]. [PERSON] et al. [12] suggested that the main parameters measured during the evaluation of occupational exoskeletons are muscle activation by superficial electromyography, physiological parameters, biomechanics, and performance. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [5] proposed a thorough evaluation of the recent literature on occupational exoskeletons, with an emphasis on the impact of these devices on workers' health and safety, performance, and users' subjective perceptions. The authors concluded that caution is warranted and standardized testing protocols should be developed for consistent evaluation, as the evidence regarding the effectiveness of exoskeletons in reducing the risk of WMSDs is lacking. More research is necessary to understand the long-term implications of exoskeleton implementation in industrial contexts and the individual factors that can influence long-term outcomes, such as worker characteristics, task requirements, and exoskeleton design features. The evaluation of occupational exoskeletons faces challenges due to the lack of standardized procedures. Several studies highlight the absence of consensus on evaluation methods and metrics for exoskeletons, leading to variations in testing conditions across different studies [10; 24; 25]. This lack of standardization makes it difficult to compare results [26] and draw meaningful conclusions. This paper aims to contribute to the filling of this gap in the lack of standardized procedures and methodologies in the evaluation of occupational exoskeletons by proposing a protocol for researchers, ergonomists, and industrial practitioners to evaluate the impact of occupational exoskeletons in industrial settings, considering factors such as user characteristics, task demands, environmental conditions, and subjective user perceptions.