Weetra checks the documents behind each important figure or statement in the file. It looks at what is there, whether the sources agree, where they conflict and what is still missing.
On this page
On this pageA value is not yet a chainThree conditionsProfessional reviewCan another professional follow the work later?A regulatory file may contain workbooks, certificates, invoices, monitoring reports, correspondence and system exports. Having those documents is only the starting point. The question is what each document actually proves and whether the records agree with one another.
A document may contain a number, declaration or statement. That does not by itself show which goods it concerns, who produced them, at which installation or during which period. It also does not show where the information came from, how the figure was calculated, whether another source conflicts with it, or whether the document proves the point for which it is being used.
Weetra does not accept a document as proof simply because it exists. The review separates what the file establishes, what conflicts, what is unsupported and what cannot be fully confirmed from the available material.
The CBAM page describes this problem where it is currently most acute. This page describes the reasoning used to examine that evidence, independent of any single regulation.
A supplier workbook states an emissions intensity of 1.84 tCO₂e per tonne. The number exists and can be extracted. It may also be arithmetically correct.
That still does not show that the number applies to the goods and period being reported. The file must connect the number to the right goods, producer, installation, period and source records.
Illustrative. The relationships that apply depend on the regulatory scope, the mandate and the evidence available.
Recalculating the number checks the maths. Reviewing the documents checks whether the number belongs to the right goods, period and installation and is supported by the right sources. Those are different exercises.
A useful review keeps three very different situations separate.
Necessary evidence for a fact or relationship has not been identified in the reviewed set of documents. Illustrative example. An installation is named, but no reviewed evidence connects the relevant goods to it.
Two or more relevant sources support incompatible states affecting the reviewed issue. Illustrative example. A supplier workbook identifies Installation A while production records identify Installation B for the same goods and relevant period.
The documents establish only part of the point. Illustrative example: a document identifies the supplier but does not identify the producing installation.
These situations need different responses. A missing document may be obtainable. Conflicting records need to be resolved before either version can be relied on. Some points may simply remain impossible to confirm from the material available. Reducing all three to one risk score would hide those differences.
A structured review may involve several kinds of examination
Where professional judgement is required, an authorised reviewer examines the relevant documents and unresolved issues before Weetra issues a Determination. The reviewer decides what the file actually supports, including where the documents support less than the file appears to suggest.
The point is not only how a calculation works, but who stands behind the conclusion. Weetra remains accountable for any Determination it issues within the agreed mandate.
A review may be revisited years after the original work. By then, people may have moved on, systems may have changed and the working context may be gone. What remains is the file.
The review record should allow a later professional to see, according to the review level and mandate
A conclusion is stronger when another reviewer can follow how it was reached. Without that history, the conclusion can only be accepted or doubted. That is why Weetra preserves the version of the file reviewed instead of reducing it to a final summary.
Weetra’s Determination complements these roles by documenting what the reviewed evidence supports within the agreed mandate. Accredited verification, where required, remains the independent statutory function of the verifier. Mandate & Boundaries →
This review approach is also translated into professional training and executive briefings. Professional training →
Each engagement is tied to the review conditions and documentary cut-off applicable to that file. Material changes to public methodology are versioned and dated; an earlier Determination remains read against the basis on which it was issued.
A document may be genuine and still fail to prove the specific point for which it is being used.
The supplier and the producing installation are checked separately when the reported information depends on where the goods were actually produced.
Arithmetic alone does not establish scope, population, period, version, where the inputs came from or whether the inputs used are the right ones.
Missing evidence means a necessary document or link has not been identified. Contradiction means relevant sources do not agree. When the available documents support a point only partly, the conclusion says so and goes no further than the evidence allows. These situations are recorded separately.
