On this page
On this pageWhat a mandate definesThe reviewed corpusWho retains whatThe DeterminationWhat it is notReview and verificationRegulatory source and legal adviceRemediationResponsibility for the conclusionCut-off and versioningIntegrity referencesEngagement boundaryOutside mandateEvery WEETRA engagement is governed by a mandate agreed before work begins. The mandate is not administrative packaging. It is the instrument that makes the eventual conclusion meaningful, because it states in advance what was to be examined and on what basis.
A mandate establishes
The mandate defines the boundary of the review.
WEETRA does not silently expand beyond it.
Each of the following is fixed at the outset rather than settled afterwards, so that the reviewed state can be described precisely later.
Which files, records, versions and other authorised sources form the review corpus.
Which regulatory question, claim, product, period, installation or other defined object is being examined.
CBAM Evidence Check, Level I, Level II or Level III, with the corresponding review depth.
The point in time or controlled state beyond which later material is not automatically considered part of the reviewed state.
Whether clarification, additional evidence requests, version replacement or remediation cycles are included.
Which matters require authorised professional determination.
Which reports, maps, registers, manifests, integrity references or packages are included, according to mandate and Review Level.
Whether the mandate permits WEETRA to issue and lock a controlled Determination within its own 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 is only meaningful in relation to the evidence actually reviewed. That sounds obvious. It stops being obvious the moment a conclusion is read months later by someone who assumes it covered everything.
The mandate should therefore make clear
Where the available sources do not permit a conclusion, the review records that as a source limitation rather than resolving the ambiguity by assumption. A source limitation is a statement about the corpus, not a finding about the world.
Absence from the reviewed corpus does not establish absence in fact. It establishes that the point could not be determined from what was authorised and available for review.
A review does not redistribute responsibility. Each actor keeps what the applicable framework, or its own professional standing, assigns to it.
Retains the responsibilities assigned by the applicable regulatory framework for the CBAM declaration and other legally assigned acts. WEETRA does not assume those responsibilities through its review, does not substitute itself for the declarant, and does not file declarations.
Provides relevant source information concerning production, installation, emissions, quantities or other underlying facts within its control. WEETRA may review the evidence received but does not become the originating source of those facts.
Provides legal advice, legal interpretation and representation. WEETRA may identify the regulatory basis relevant to an evidentiary 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 may structure and review the documentary basis relevant to that process, but a WEETRA Determination or Determination Package does not replace an accredited verification report.
Exercise the regulatory, supervisory, acceptance, enforcement and other powers assigned to them by law. WEETRA has no authority to bind them and no authority to anticipate their decisions.
Performs review evidentiary review within the agreed mandate and may issue a controlled WEETRA Determination where applicable. Its Determination records what the reviewed evidentiary state supports within that mandate, and nothing beyond it.
A WEETRA Determination is an institutional review conclusion derived from the reviewed evidentiary state within a defined mandate. Depending on the review option and scope, it may record
The following are stated explicitly because the distinction matters and because a review conclusion is easy to over-read. A WEETRA Determination is not
Nor is it a promise that a file will escape inspection or adjustment. No WEETRA deliverable contains a score, a grade or a compliance percentage. Conclusions are expressed exclusively as defined review statuses describing the observed state of the evidentiary environment.
These two functions are sometimes spoken of together, which makes it worth separating them precisely.
The distinction is not one of quality or seniority. It is one of function and of legal standing.
WEETRA does not issue the accredited verification opinion, does not instruct a verifier, and does not obtain or convey any form of verifier endorsement, pre-approval or delegation. Structured preparation may make an external process more legible. It does not make its outcome more certain.
Regulatory evidence review necessarily engages with regulation, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. During a review, WEETRA may
None of that converts a WEETRA report into legal advice or representation. Linking an evidentiary requirement to its regulatory source is part of the review because it explains why a document matters. Advice on legal consequences, interpretation of contested provisions and representation before an authority remain legal functions.
Legal counsel retains the legal-advisory function. Where a question turns on legal interpretation rather than on the evidentiary state, it belongs with counsel.
Where the mandate includes remediation, its scope is defined rather than open-ended.
WEETRA may use structured tools to support examination, but the institutional conclusion remains the responsibility of the authorised reviewer. That work is real and it is done well, but it does not carry institutional authority.
Where a Determination requires professional judgement, an authorised reviewer examines the relevant evidence and unresolved conditions before the conclusion is issued. WEETRA remains responsible for that conclusion within the agreed mandate. It is not accredited verification and it is not a decision of any authority.
A reviewed state has a defined evidentiary boundary. Without one, a conclusion would silently drift as material continued to arrive.
If new evidence arrives after a state is locked, it does not alter the prior Determination by itself. Depending on the mandate and the applicable process, it may
Later evidence may change the reviewed state.
It does not retroactively change what the earlier corpus contained.
Where integrity references such as SHA-256 hashes are used, their meaning is narrow and worth stating exactly. An integrity reference may establish correspondence between a later file or package and the recorded reference state. It does not establish
Integrity confirms correspondence.
It does not create evidentiary truth.
Explore Documented Evidentiary Due Diligence →
A WEETRA engagement ends where the mandate ends. Unless separately agreed and included, 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.
Discipline at the boundary matters more than reach. Where 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. Naming the limit is part of the method, not a failure of it.
WEETRA Organization is an independent review body. It is not a governmental body, regulatory agency, or competent body within the meaning of any EU regulation. 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. Final decisions on the admissibility of data remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of competent authorities.
