Supplier declarations vs verified evidence

A supplier declaration and verified evidence are different kinds of record, and the passport and due diligence files must keep them separate. A declaration is a statement made by a supplier about origin, practice, or compliance. Verified evidence is a statement that has been tested by an independent check, such as a third party audit, a site visit, a laboratory result, or a reconciled chain of custody record. A file that treats every supplier statement as verified overstates the strength of the evidence. The record must label each item, name the checker where a check was done, and state what was checked and when.

A supplier declaration is a written statement by a supplier, signed or otherwise attributable, about a fact in the supply chain. Verified evidence is a declaration or a fact that has been corroborated by an independent source or method. The scope is evidence used for due diligence and passport claims.

What is the legal frame for this record?

Supplier declarations and verified evidence sits inside that sequence, so a record that shows only one step leaves the chain of reasoning incomplete. A compliance reviewer grading evidence for a refiner claim therefore needs a file that shows the policy, the owner of the policy, the date of adoption, and the review cycle. A refiner declaration that material came from a named mine becomes verified evidence only when a chain of custody record, a purchase record, or an independent audit supports the same mine, quantity, and period.

How is the chain mapped?

The map should name each tier that handles supplier declarations and verified evidence, record the function of each actor, and note where material changes form, such as refining, precursor production, cathode production, cell production, and pack assembly. Declarations, audit summaries, and corroborating records should be tied to a named tier, a named site where that information is known, and a date. A compliance reviewer grading evidence for a refiner claim should record gaps on the map itself, with the reason for each gap and the next step planned. Industry schemes can support verification, but scheme membership alone is not verification of a specific quantity, site, or period, and the record should state the scheme, the scope, and the date of the relevant assessment.

How is evidence judged?

A supplier statement, a contract clause, a third party audit summary, a mass balance record, and a chain of custody document do not carry equal weight, and the record should say which type supports each claim about supplier declarations and verified evidence. Declarations, audit summaries, and corroborating records needs a source name, a collection date, a coverage period, and a statement of what was actually checked. A compliance reviewer grading evidence for a refiner claim should separate facts received from conclusions drawn, so a later reviewer can test the conclusion. A refiner declaration that material came from a named mine becomes verified evidence only when a chain of custody record, a purchase record, or an independent audit supports the same mine, quantity, and period.

How is risk identified and assessed?

A red flag can be a place of origin, a processing route, a supplier practice, a change of ownership, or a gap in records for supplier declarations and verified evidence. Industry schemes can support verification, but scheme membership alone is not verification of a specific quantity, site, or period, and the record should state the scheme, the scope, and the date of the relevant assessment. A compliance reviewer grading evidence for a refiner claim should date each assessment and name the person or function responsible for the next review.

How is mitigation planned and followed up?

For supplier declarations and verified evidence, the plan should state the risk addressed, the action chosen, the supplier or site involved, the support offered, and the evidence that will show whether the action worked. Declarations, audit summaries, and corroborating records collected after the action should be compared with the position before the action, using the same measure where possible. A refiner declaration that material came from a named mine becomes verified evidence only when a chain of custody record, a purchase record, or an independent audit supports the same mine, quantity, and period.

How is reporting checked?

The due diligence report should summarise the policy, the management system, the risks found, the actions taken, and the verification arranged for supplier declarations and verified evidence, without disclosing confidential commercial detail that the Regulation does not require to be published. A compliance reviewer grading evidence for a refiner claim should check that every public claim can be traced to an internal record, and that the report date, coverage period, and scope match the internal file. Industry schemes can support verification, but scheme membership alone is not verification of a specific quantity, site, or period, and the record should state the scheme, the scope, and the date of the relevant assessment.

How is evidence graded for one supplier claim?

Grading for one claim, such as a statement that cobalt came from a named mine, uses three grades. Grade one is a declaration alone, labelled as a declaration with signer and date. Grade two is a declaration corroborated by one independent record, such as a purchase record or a chain of custody document for the same quantity and period. Grade three is independent verification, such as an audit that checked the mine, the quantity, and the period. A worked file shows the claim, the grade, the sources, and the checker, in one table. A claim graded at grade one must not be quoted in a public report in language that implies grade three, and the report should use the same grade language as the internal file.

Grading stays honest only when the label follows the check that was actually done, and a declaration relabelled as verified evidence misleads every later reader.