01 / REVIEW
Write the claim precisely
Separate identity, origin, transaction, legality and sustainability questions. A single document rarely answers all of them. Avoid broad badges that collapse several different review tasks.
02 / REVIEW
State the evidence type
Identify whether the record is a supplier statement, transaction document, internal observation or independent report. Keep reviewer notes separate from the document’s actual wording.
03 / REVIEW
Publish only the supported scope
If an important relationship remains unresolved, say so in the record. Document completeness does not independently establish legality or an unbroken forest-to-board chain. This tool does not issue certification.
Ask what each document actually establishes
A document can be genuine and still be insufficient for the claim someone wants to make. An invoice records a commercial transaction. A packing list describes a shipment. A supplier statement may make an origin claim. A certificate or regulatory document has a defined issuer, scope and set of conditions. None should be treated as a universal proof of every attribute of the wood.
Write the proposed claim as a sentence before reviewing the evidence. “This lot was received from Supplier A” is different from “this wood was harvested in Country B,” which is different again from a certification claim. Clear wording makes missing evidence easier to identify.
| Proposed statement | Evidence question |
|---|---|
| Purchased from a named supplier | Does the transaction record identify this lot? |
| Harvested in a stated country | Does the evidence concern harvest, rather than shipping or processing? |
| A particular botanical species | Is the scientific identification supported for the material covered? |
| Covered by a certification claim | Does the claim apply to the transaction and material under the scheme's rules? |
| Compliant with an import requirement | Which requirement, filing and responsible party are involved? |
Shipping location is not harvest location
Wood may be harvested, processed, stored and exported in different places. Keep those fields separate. A port of departure does not establish where the tree grew. A supplier's business address does not establish either location.
For U.S. import declarations, APHIS guidance on the Lacey Act declaration is the primary starting point for current filing requirements. Those requirements have their own scope and exceptions. An internal provenance worksheet does not replace a required filing or determine legal compliance.
Publish the narrowest supported statement
If the record supports only supplier identity and receipt quantity, state those facts and leave harvest origin unresolved. Avoid upgrading a partial record through phrases such as “fully traceable” or “responsibly sourced” without defining and supporting what they mean.
When a document is incomplete, request the missing element specifically: the lot linkage, the covered quantity, the scientific name or the relevant transaction claim. A general request for “better paperwork” often produces another document with the same gap.
Keep the claim text beside its evidence and review date. If a document is replaced or a discrepancy appears, identify which public or project statements need reconsideration. The missing-records guide provides a way to keep that uncertainty visible without treating the entire file as either perfect or worthless.
A lot-record scenario
Fictional example: an internally complete dossier contains a supplier origin statement and matching invoice. It can be described as internally consistent; it cannot be relabelled independently verified solely because every field is filled.
Use the result
Keep the completed review with the relevant project record. Assign unresolved items before relying on a conclusion. If the material, condition or document changes, revisit the affected questions.
Evidence workspaceTechnical references
General background for the subject. Project worksheets and fictional situations are original review aids, not official agency forms.
APHIS: Lacey declaration guidance