Verification process

ISO 14064-3:2019; ISO 14064-1:2018, clause 10

Stages

flowchart TD
    A[Pre-engagement<br/>scope, criteria, assurance level,<br/>materiality, impartiality] --> B[Strategic analysis &<br/>risk assessment]
    B --> C[Evidence-gathering plan<br/>& sampling plan]
    C --> D[Verification activities<br/>site visits, document review,<br/>recalculation, interviews]
    D --> E[Findings raised]
    E --> F[Organisation corrects<br/>& responds]
    F --> G[Evaluation of the<br/>GHG statement]
    G --> H[Independent review]
    H --> I[Verification opinion<br/>& statement]

What we agree with the verifier up front

Item	Our position
Subject	GHG statement for FY____ covering Categories __
Criteria	ISO 14064-1:2018 and this repository's documented methods
Level of assurance	Reasonable / Limited
Materiality	Quantitative threshold 5% of total (verifier's call, agreed in advance), plus qualitative factors
Intended users
Verification body accreditation	ISO 14065 by [UKAS / other]

Reasonable or limited assurance?

• Reasonable assurance needs more evidence. It is usually expected for Categories 1 and 2, and for regulatory or financing uses.
• Limited assurance is common for Categories 3–6.

What we provide

Hand the verifier this checklist: the verification readiness checklist.

Handling findings

• Log each finding as a GitHub issue using the Verification finding template, and in inventory/<year>/findings-log.csv.
• Classify each one:
  • Non-conformity. The requirements are not met.
  • Misstatement. The numbers are wrong.
  • Observation. An improvement opportunity.
• Fix each by PR, link the PR to the issue, and get the verifier to agree it is closed.
• Uncorrected misstatements are added together and compared with the materiality threshold.

Facts discovered after verification

If an error is found after the opinion has been issued, tell the verifier. Then assess it against the base-year recalculation threshold.