Evidence gap register
A practical data-gap register for product-passport preparation
Structure DPP preparation around evidence status, source authority, freshness, conflict, owner, and next action.
Target outcome
A prioritized register that can be reviewed across functions without converting unknowns into false completeness.
Work through the evidence
before the final claim.
- 01
One row per evidence claim
Use a stable claim ID, product-family scope, field or topic, expected source, actual source, and current status.
- 02
Record authority and freshness
A value can exist but still be unusable when it is stale, applies to another market, or comes from a non-authoritative system.
- 03
Make conflict a first-class state
Do not overwrite competing supplier or system values. Preserve the conflict and assign the decision to the responsible authority.
- 04
Separate collection from interpretation
Data owners can provide evidence while legal, compliance, or certification owners determine applicability and required form.
Example input
A concrete first pass
Three recycled-content values exist for one component: supplier spreadsheet 25%, ERP note 20%, and an expired certificate 30%.
Reviewable output
A conflict record retaining all three sources, dates, scopes, and an assigned authoritative resolution action.
The register prevents a convenient value from silently becoming an unsupported public claim.
Important boundaries
What this workflow does not prove
- The template does not decide which DPP regime applies.
- Evidence may need access controls outside this public workflow.
- Do not publish supplier-confidential information without authority.
Product-passport teams · $49 once
Use PassportMap for the structured first pass.
Build a bounded product-passport evidence readiness map that separates present records, gaps, and items requiring authoritative review.