Skip to main content

Review a verification task

Opening a Task​

From the Verification Queue, click Review on the task row (or View Details in History) to open the task page. Opening a task does not change its status. The status changes only when you approve or reject it.

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 DataAll the operator's submitted fields for the product, in alphabetical order with empty fields left out, so you can cross-check the claim. Above them a Publish Gate box reads "Product would pass end-to-end", or "1 gap remain" or "N gaps remain" followed by "Gap kinds: ..." and "Approving this task alone won't make the DPP publishable."
All Docs (n)All compliance documents attached to this product, for cross-reference. The document under review is marked with an Under Review badge. Each document shows its status badge and its valid-until or "Expired" date
Traceability (n)Supply chain lineage data linked to this product

The right-hand column has a Claim to Verify card showing the claim, and a Submission Details card showing Company, Submitted and, once decided, Completed. The product name is in the page header: "Review Task:" followed by the document name, with the line "Verify the claims and documentation for the product:" followed by the product name. The battery category is not shown on this page.

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, life cycle stages from raw material acquisition and pre-processing to end of life and recycling").

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 or equivalent)
  • A recycled content figure should state the methodology used to calculate it
  • 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 reason is recorded with the decision. 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.").

Was this page helpful?
Last updated on