A review only means something if its limits are clear. This page sets out what Weetra does and where the mandate stops.
On this page
On this pageWhat a mandate definesThe reviewed set of documentsWho retains whatThe DeterminationWhat it is notReview and verificationRegulatory source and legal adviceQuestions and correctionsResponsibility for the conclusionCut-off and versioningIntegrity referencesEngagement boundaryOutside mandateEvery Weetra engagement starts with a mandate agreed before work begins. It is more than paperwork: it defines what will be examined, on what basis, and therefore what any later conclusion can legitimately say.
A mandate establishes
The mandate defines the boundary of the review.
Weetra does not silently expand beyond it.
These points are fixed at the outset rather than decided after the review, so the final scope can be explained clearly later.
Which files, records, versions and other authorised sources are included in the review.
Which regulatory question, reported figure or statement, product, period, installation or other defined subject is being examined.
CBAM Evidence Check, Level I, Level II or Level III, with the corresponding review depth.
The point after which new material is not automatically treated as part of the reviewed file.
Whether the engagement includes clarification questions, requests for additional documents, replacement versions or follow-up review.
Which matters require professional judgement from an authorised reviewer.
Which reports, supporting-document lists, review records, file-integrity checks or packages are included under the mandate and review level.
Whether the mandate allows Weetra to finalise and issue a Determination within the agreed review scope.
The mandate also fixes retention and confidentiality arrangements, the versioning and correction rules that apply, and the conditions under which any resulting package may be used with a third party. A Weetra Determination remains a review conclusion. The mandate does not convert it into a regulatory decision.
How the review itself is reasoned is set out in Review Approach →
A review conclusion only applies to the evidence that was actually examined. That sounds obvious, but months later it is easy for someone to assume the conclusion covered more than it did.
The mandate should therefore make clear
If the available documents do not support a conclusion, the review records that limit instead of filling the gap with an assumption. That tells the reader what could not be confirmed from the material reviewed; it does not make a statement about facts outside the file.
If something is absent from the reviewed material, that does not prove it does not exist. It means only that the point could not be established from the material authorised and available for review.
A Weetra review does not move legal or professional responsibilities from one actor to another. Each party keeps the responsibilities assigned to it by law or by its professional role.
The importer or authorised CBAM declarant remains responsible for the declaration and the duties assigned to it by the CBAM rules. Weetra does not take over those responsibilities or file declarations on the client’s behalf.
Provides the source information within its control on production, installations, emissions, quantities and other underlying facts. Weetra may review that material, but it does not become the source of those facts.
Provides legal advice, legal interpretation and representation. Weetra may identify the regulatory rule relevant to a documentary question during its review, but does not replace legal counsel.
Performs customs-representation functions where applicable. Weetra does not lodge customs declarations and does not assume customs representation.
Performs the independent regulated verification function where required. Weetra can help organise and review the supporting record, but a Weetra Determination or Determination Package does not replace an accredited verification report.
Exercise the regulatory, supervisory and enforcement powers assigned to them by law. Weetra cannot bind an authority or predict its decision.
Reviews the evidence within the agreed mandate and may issue a Weetra Determination where the engagement allows it. The Determination states what the reviewed file supports within that scope, and nothing more.
A Weetra Determination is Weetra’s conclusion about the file it reviewed within a defined mandate. Depending on the Review level and scope, it may record
These limits are stated explicitly because a review conclusion can easily be read too broadly. A Weetra Determination is not
It is also not a promise that a file will avoid inspection or later adjustment. Weetra does not issue a compliance score, grade or probability. Its conclusions state what the documents support within the agreed scope.
These functions are related, but they are not the same and should be kept separate.
The difference is not about quality or seniority. It is about function and legal standing.
Weetra does not issue the accredited verification opinion, direct the verifier, or imply verifier endorsement, pre-approval or delegation. Better preparation can make the external process clearer; it cannot guarantee the outcome.
A regulatory evidence review necessarily refers to the rules that make particular documents or facts relevant. During a review, Weetra may
That does not turn a Weetra report into legal advice or representation. Linking an evidence requirement to its regulatory source explains why a document matters. Advice on legal consequences, disputed interpretation and representation before an authority remains the role of legal counsel.
Legal counsel retains the legal-advisory function. Where a question turns on legal interpretation rather than on the reviewed file, it belongs with counsel.
If follow-up and correction work is included, its scope is defined in advance rather than left open-ended.
Weetra may use structured tools to support the review, but the final conclusion remains the responsibility of the authorised reviewer. That responsibility does not give Weetra regulatory authority.
When a Determination requires professional judgement, an authorised reviewer examines the relevant evidence and unresolved issues before it is issued. Weetra remains responsible for that conclusion within the agreed mandate. It is neither accredited verification nor a decision of an authority.
Every reviewed file has a defined review cut-off. Without one, the meaning of the conclusion would shift each time new material arrived.
If new evidence arrives after the review is closed, it does not by itself change the earlier Determination. Depending on the mandate and the applicable process, it may
Later evidence may change the conclusion, but only after it is reviewed.
It does not retroactively change what the earlier set of documents contained.
Where SHA-256 or similar file integrity checks are used, their role is limited. They can show that a later file matches a recorded reference version. They do not establish
Integrity references confirm file correspondence.
They do not prove that the underlying facts are true.
A Weetra engagement ends where the mandate ends. Unless separately agreed, Weetra does not automatically
Any of these may be included in a further mandate. None of them is assumed by implication from a completed review.
Clear boundaries matter more than trying to cover everything. If an issue falls outside the authorised review scope, it should be
Typical examples are a legal interpretation requiring counsel, an accredited verification conclusion, a decision reserved to an authority, customs representation, and evidence lying outside the authorised source scope. Stating the limit clearly is part of the method, not a failure of it.
Weetra is an independent regulatory documentary review organisation. It is not a governmental body, regulator or competent authority under EU law. Nothing on this page constitutes legal, tax or compliance advice.
Weetra does not provide certification, accredited verification, legal advice, customs representation or any guarantee of regulatory acceptance. Competent authorities retain the powers assigned to them by law.
Commercial instructions can define the question, scope and review depth. They cannot require Weetra to reach a particular finding.
Any relationship that could materially affect an independent reading of the evidence should be identified before the review is relied on.
If the available sources cannot establish a material relationship, the gap remains visible rather than being filled by assumption.
If a material installation, period, data population or source relationship cannot be established, the file may remain unresolved rather than being forced into a favourable conclusion.
