Supplier Claims Verification Review.
One service, one report, one method. You have a supplier's or implementation partner's report in front of you and a decision that depends on it. We answer one question: does what they reported meet your agreed requirements, and is it adequately supported by evidence?
We are commissioned and paid by the party carrying the risk. We tell you what you can rely on, what has exceptions, and what remains unverified. We review the supplier report you need to accept — we do not replace your systems.
The claim ladder, the tests and the report are the same. What differs is who is buying, and when.
Supplier data assurance for EUDR
What we test: plot polygons and traceability claims —
geometry integrity, duplicates across farmer records, overlapping
boundaries, implausible areas, drawn-not-walked boundaries,
deforestation screening, and whether the volume claimed is supported
by the mapped area.
Why now: EUDR applies to large and medium operators
from 30 December 2026 and to micro and small operators from 30 June
2027. The operator who first places a product on the EU market must
establish that it is deforestation-free — and cannot verify West
African supplier data from a desk in Europe.
Activity and results verification
What we test: training delivered, inputs distributed,
beneficiaries counted — eligibility, completion calculated from
approved module rules, approvals before reporting, records inside the
reporting period.
Where it fits: mostly programme- and donor-funded,
often reached as a subcontractor to a prime rather than by direct bid.
It is where our demonstrated competence is deepest — we know the
defect patterns before opening the file.
Narrow on purpose.
- Scope One supplier, one claim set, one reporting period. Geographic coverage and field checks are agreed and priced separately.
- Pricing structure A fixed desk fee plus a per-site field fee. Sampling coverage is your choice and your cost — which keeps the quote honest. We never price by the number of findings.
- You receive An evidence-linked assessment · a discrepancy register · explicit testing limitations · a prioritised corrective action plan. Methods and detailed records go in supporting schedules; the management report answers what you need to know without reading our code.
- Materiality, set first Before testing starts we agree with you what magnitude of error matters — a share of reported volume or beneficiaries, or any ineligible recipient at all. Without it there is a list of findings and no overall conclusion.
- Sampling, declared Risk-based or random, size justified, and a plain statement of what can and cannot be inferred about the population. We control sample selection; the supplier never chooses which farms we visit.
- One warning A desk review is not confirmation that activities physically happened. Where you need that, beneficiary confirmations or field verification are scoped into the assignment and priced — never implied.
Three verdicts, always kept apart.
Most verification work collapses into pass or fail. Keeping these separate is what makes a report defensible — and what stops us becoming a hatchet.
The evidence holds.
The evidence tested supports the claim, within the stated coverage and limitations. A clean result is a valuable result: confirming that a good supplier's claims hold up is worth the fee, and protects that supplier from unfounded doubt.
Not an allegation.
The supporting evidence was not provided or could not be tested. Missing information surfaces as "could not be tested" — never as a result that looks like everyone passed.
The evidence conflicts with the claim.
Stated with the records behind it. The supplier gets a fair opportunity to correct factual misunderstandings. It does not get a veto over a supported finding.
A useful finding reads like this: the available records support dispatch of the reported quantity, but planting evidence is incomplete for the records in the findings register; field check results apply only to the tested sites; further evidence is needed before the full planting claim can be accepted. That is defensible. "The supplier lied" is not.
Assurance is bought at trigger moments.
Nobody wakes up wanting their records audited. Reviews get commissioned when somebody with power over you is about to ask a question you cannot answer.
- A dateEUDR applies from 30 December 2026 and your supplier plot data will not stand up.
- A paymentA partner report supports a payment milestone, or a financier makes disbursement conditional on verified data.
- A reportSupplier results are about to go into a sustainability or programme report you will have to defend.
- A shipmentA consignment is held, rejected or queried; a buyer questionnaire lands with a deadline and the plot data is a mess.
- An auditA certification audit is booked and you have failed or nearly failed before.
- A numberDifferent systems keep producing conflicting figures and nobody can explain why — or a new compliance hire inherits a mess and needs an independent baseline.
The difference between a report that means something and one that doesn't.
These are not administrative afterthoughts. They are written into the method before any client sees it, and scope limitations appear on page one of every report, in plain language.
Not certification. Not an audit opinion.
When a buyer has its supplier reviewed, directly or through us, that is second-party verification. Being an external firm does not make it third-party certification, and we will never describe it that way. We do not issue certification, we do not issue an independent audit opinion, and we do not imply recognition under any scheme that has its own approval process.
Paid by the buyer. Never by findings.
We contract with, and take money only from, the commissioning buyer. A fee that rises with the number of problems found is a fee that will find problems. Verification and remediation stay contractually and commercially separate — buying our tools is never the route to a favourable conclusion.
ISO/IEC 17029 informs how we work.
Competence, consistent operation, impartiality — the principles set out for validation and verification bodies are the foundation of our method. Referring to that framework does not mean we are accredited against it, and we never suggest otherwise. An external reviewer who is not the preparer signs off every engagement.
- Scope and authorityWe confirm access rights through your supply agreement, or separate written supplier permission, before work starts. We test against the applicable contract and programme rules — your internal SOP is not automatically an obligation on your supplier.
- FraudWhen something looks like fraud we report and hand off. We do not investigate. Who is notified and how quickly is agreed with you before fieldwork starts, not improvised after a finding.
- Bad newsWe agree in advance what happens when findings are bad. The first time a client pressures us to soften a report defines what this company is worth.
Start with the decision, not a demo.
We would rather understand the report you have to accept than show you a capability deck. Tell us the decision; we come back with a proposed scope, timeline and cost — and an honest read on whether we are the right firm for it.
- 1 · The decision What exactly is being claimed, what is at stake in accepting it, how you check it today, who can authorise access to the supplier's records, and who controls the budget.
- 2 · The scope Requirements and their source, the claim set, the reporting period, materiality, sampling basis, field coverage, and the escalation protocol — in an engagement letter you can inspect.
- 3 · The review Receive the submission, establish requirements, test records, examine evidence, write findings, propose controls. Corrective actions can be retested in a separately scoped follow-on.