Skip to main content

Review a verification task

Opening a Task​

From the Verification Queue, click the Action button on the task row to open the task detail page. Opening a task moves it from Pending to In Review status. This change is visible to the operator and signals that you have begun the review.

What You See in a Task​

The task detail page is organised into tabs. Use each tab to access different aspects of the submission:

TabWhat it contains
DocumentThe primary document submitted for review, rendered in the in-platform viewer
Product DataThe DPP field data for the product — the specific claim or set of fields the operator is asking you to verify
All DocsAll compliance documents attached to this product, for cross-reference
TraceabilitySupply chain lineage data linked to this product

The task sidebar shows key details: the operator company, product name, battery category, and the specific claim the operator has submitted for your verification.

Systematic Review Approach​

A rigorous, consistent review methodology protects both you and the operators you work with. Follow these steps for every task:

Step 1: Identify the claim being verified​

Open the Product Data tab. Read the DPP field value precisely. Note the exact numeric value, unit, and any qualifying conditions (e.g., "Carbon footprint: 42.8 kg CO₂e/kWh, cradle-to-gate, based on LCA methodology compliant with EU Battery Regulation Annex II Part B").

Step 2: Review the submitted document​

Open the Document tab. Review the document carefully. Note the document type, the issuing body, the issue date, and the scope statement. Does the document appear relevant to the specific claim?

Step 3: Assess whether the evidence substantiates the claim​

This is the substance of your review. For a quantitative claim, check whether the document explicitly states a value that matches or supports the declared DPP value. For a qualitative claim (e.g., "conflict-free sourcing"), check whether the document's scope covers the material and supply chain in question.

Common assessment questions:

  • Does the document value match the DPP field value? (Check number, unit, and any applicable conditions)
  • Does the document cover the specific product, model, or material being claimed? Or does its scope appear broader or different?
  • Does the document reflect the time period applicable to the DPP? (A 2019 test report may not substantiate a claim for a 2025 product)

Step 4: Check document authenticity markers​

You are not a forensic document examiner, but you are expected to perform a reasonable professional assessment of document authenticity:

  • Is the issuing body credible and appropriate for this type of document? (A carbon footprint LCA should come from an accredited LCA practitioner; a UN 38.3 test should come from an accredited testing laboratory)
  • Does the document carry a signature, stamp, or certification mark from the issuer?
  • Is the issue date and, where applicable, validity period clearly shown?
  • Does the document's formatting and detail level appear consistent with what you would expect from a professional issuer of this type?

Step 5: Cross-reference values against technical standards​

Where applicable, verify that the claimed values are consistent with the technical standards cited in the DPP or in the evidence documents. For example:

  • A carbon footprint calculation methodology should cite and be consistent with a recognised standard (ISO 14067, the EU Battery Regulation Annex II LCA methodology, or equivalent)
  • A recycled content figure should be calculated in accordance with the EU Battery Regulation Annex XII methodology
  • Safety ratings and test results should reference specific test standards (IEC 62133, UL 9540A, UN 38.3, etc.)

You are not expected to independently recalculate every value. You are expected to assess whether the stated methodology is appropriate and whether the evidence is consistent with the declared result.

If Documents Appear Altered or Suspect​

If you review a document and it appears to have been digitally altered, inconsistently formatted in a way suggesting manipulation, or contains values that are internally contradictory:

  1. Do not speculate in your decision comment about intent
  2. Note specifically what you have observed — the visual inconsistency, the value discrepancy, the formatting anomaly — based solely on what is visible in the document
  3. Reject the task with a clear, factual rejection comment describing the specific issue
  4. Do not approve the claim while the document's integrity is in question

Your rejection comment will become part of the DPP audit trail. It should describe the observable problem without asserting motive (e.g., "The reported cycle life value in the test report appears to have been amended — the figure 1,500 is overlaid on what appears to be original text. Please provide an unmodified original or a new test report.").