A review is not a single judgement. It is a sequence of documented steps, from defining the file to issuing the conclusion.
A Weetra review starts with a defined file and ends with a conclusion tied to the documents actually examined. Another professional should be able to see the scope, the material reviewed, the unresolved points and why the final Determination was reached. The review also records what was received, what changed and which version of the file supported the conclusion at the agreed cut-off.
The mandate identifies the goods, suppliers, installations, periods, questions and documents in scope under review. Anything outside that boundary remains outside the conclusion.
Weetra identifies the records behind the important figures and statements in the file and the questions those records need to answer. The first task is to understand what the file is relying on before checking whether the supporting documents hold together.
Quantities, installation identities, periods, supplier information, emissions data and supporting calculations are compared across the available records. Calculations are reproduced where the mandate, governing rule and necessary inputs allow it.
A missing document is not the same as an inconsistency, and a point that cannot be confirmed is not necessarily wrong. Each issue is described for what it is.
Where the mandate includes follow-up, Weetra identifies what needs clarification or correction. The client, supplier, adviser or relevant operational team provides the new material. Weetra then examines the updated file.
The Determination states what the file supports at the agreed cut-off, including any unresolved points or conditions that affect the conclusion. Where included in the engagement, the supporting package keeps enough of the documentary history for another professional to understand that conclusion later.
Each stage depends on the one before it. The scope must be fixed before the file can be assessed. The sources need to be understood before conflicting information can be resolved, and the conclusion must be tied to the exact version reviewed. Recording that sequence makes the work easy for another professional to follow later.
The reviewer responsible for the engagement authorises the conclusion against a defined cut-off, report version and set of documents. Depending on the review level, the supporting package may also preserve document versions, identified inconsistencies, the history of questions and corrections, supporting-document lists and file-integrity checks. The report states the conclusion. The supporting record explains how it was reached.
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 →
Quality control is built into the review rather than added at the end.
| Gate | What is controlled | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate | Scope, entities, installations, period, set of documents and review depth. | Prevents a conclusion from silently expanding beyond what was reviewed. |
| Evidence state | Document identity, versions, source relationships, missing material, inconsistencies and points that cannot be confirmed. | Keeps findings tied to identifiable sources rather than impressions. |
| Questions and corrections | New evidence, replacements, corrections and the effect of each change on earlier findings. | Preserves the path from the original file to the final reviewed version. |
| Close-out | Cut-off, conclusion, unresolved matters, report version and supporting reviewed record. | Makes the Determination understandable to a later professional reviewer. |
The initial enquiry is for scoping. Sensitive evidence should not be sent through an unsolicited first email. Documentary evidence enters the review through the agreed intake route once the mandate and handling conditions are defined.
