Demo 2 — complex carbon-neutral claim
This is the artifact we send experts — a real run of the engine. Yours would use your own claim and evidence.
Claim: Our coffee pods are carbon neutral. · market US · Carbon neutral / net zero / climate neutral
Report EVS-9a7dd550aa1f2702-v1 · v1 · generated 2026-06-28 · rules current as of 2026-06-25
Verdict: Contested — substantiate before you publish
Evidence coverage — 33% (1/3 requirements met)
Readiness
YELLOW
YELLOW
Evidence confidence
33%
33%
Legal review
recommended
recommended
LCA review
recommended
recommended
Decision
Publish as written? Maybe — only after the gaps below are closed
Required before launch:
- A reduction pathway — offsets used only for the residual, not as the primary basis.
- Offset/removal quality: additionality, permanence, no double counting.
Recommended wording: Cradle-to-gate footprint cut 28% since 2020 (ISO 14067); residual addressed with certified removals.
Clarifications needed (answer once)
Batch these to your team; anything left unanswered is recorded as an assumption rather than re-running the report.
| Question | Why it matters | Accepted answer |
|---|---|---|
| Is the claim for one unit, the product line, or the company? | Rules differ by claim scope. | product / line / company |
| Which markets will the claim appear in? | US / California / EU / UK rules differ. | market list |
| Is the LCA cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-shelf, or cradle-to-grave? | 'Carbon neutral' implies a broad boundary. | boundary / LCA page |
| Does the footprint include materials, packaging, shipping, use, and disposal? | Omitted stages undercut neutrality. | stage list |
| What is the baseline for any '% reduction'? | Comparatives need a stated baseline. | baseline year / product |
| Are reductions absolute or intensity-based? | Intensity cuts can hide rising absolute emissions. | absolute / intensity |
| What offsets or removals were used? | Offset type changes the risk. | registry / project docs |
| Were the credits retired (not just purchased)? | A purchase receipt is not retirement. | retirement certificate |
| Registry, project ID, serial numbers, vintage, protocol? | Needed to verify quality + no double-counting. | registry records |
| Is there third-party verification? | Self-claimed neutrality is weak. | verification statement |
Rule map & risk by market
| Market | Risk | Rule | Why it applies | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | YELLOW | FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.5 (carbon offsets) | Offsets must be real and disclosed; an unqualified 'carbon neutral' is deceptive without a clear basis. | source (2026-06-25) |
| US (California) | RED | AB 1305 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures) | Requires public disclosure backing carbon-neutral/net-zero/offset claims; Attorney-General enforceable. | source (2026-06-25) |
| EU | RED | Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825) | Bans generic green claims without recognised proof; applies to consumer-facing product claims from 27 Sep 2026. | source (2026-06-25) |
| UK | YELLOW | DMCC Act 2024 + CMA Green Claims Code | The CMA can act on misleading green claims (fines up to 10% of global turnover). | source (2026-06-25) |
Evidence gap table
| Requirement | Evidence provided | Enough? | Why | Missing | Who provides | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A full product/organization carbon footprint (ISO 14067 / GHG Protocol) with a stated boundary. | Cradle-to-gate LCA | Met | Met by E1 (quality 5/5). | You / LCA practitioner | — | |
| A reduction pathway — offsets used only for the residual, not as the primary basis. | Internal reduction note | Partially met | Best evidence is weak (quality 1/5); raise independence/standard. | A reduction pathway — offsets used only for the residual, not as the primary basis. | You (registry records) | Medium |
| Offset/removal quality: additionality, permanence, no double counting. | Offset purchase receipt | Partially met | Best evidence is weak (quality 2/5); raise independence/standard. | Offset/removal quality: additionality, permanence, no double counting. | You (registry records) | Medium |
Evidence inventory
| Evidence | Type | Quality | What it does NOT prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cradle-to-gate LCA | lca | 5/5 | — |
| Internal reduction note | internal_memo | 1/5 | self-declared (not independent); no named standard; not third-party-verifiable |
| Offset purchase receipt | contract | 2/5 | no named standard; not third-party-verifiable; no functional unit / boundary |
| Marketing one-pager | internal_memo | 1/5 | self-declared (not independent); no named standard; not third-party-verifiable |
Exact documents to collect
- ISO 14067 product carbon footprint (full lifecycle) with a stated boundary
- Reduction pathway showing cuts achieved BEFORE any offsets
- Offset registry name + project ID + serial numbers
- Offset vintage year + retirement certificate
- Additionality + permanence / reversal-risk documentation
- Third-party verification statement
- No-double-counting confirmation
Offset & reduction review
- Reductions before offsets? not answered
- Offsets documented (registry / serial / vintage / retirement)? not answered
- Offsets third-party verified (additionality / permanence)? not answered
Questions to ask your supplier
- What is the product's cradle-to-gate footprint (ISO 14067) and its system boundary?
- What reductions were made BEFORE any offsets?
- For any offsets/removals: registry, serial numbers, vintage, additionality, permanence?
Ready-to-send evidence request
Subject: Evidence needed to substantiate our environmental claim To support the claim "Our coffee pods are carbon neutral.", please provide: - What is the product's cradle-to-gate footprint (ISO 14067) and its system boundary? - What reductions were made BEFORE any offsets? - For any offsets/removals: registry, serial numbers, vintage, additionality, permanence? Documents still needed: - ISO 14067 product carbon footprint (full lifecycle) with a stated boundary - Reduction pathway showing cuts achieved BEFORE any offsets - Offset registry name + project ID + serial numbers - Offset vintage year + retirement certificate - Additionality + permanence / reversal-risk documentation - Third-party verification statement - No-double-counting confirmation Please include dates, issuers, and any registry / serial references. Thank you.
Safer wording options
Conservative: Cradle-to-gate footprint cut 28% since 2020 (ISO 14067); residual addressed with certified removals.
Moderate: Working toward carbon neutrality — reductions first, removals for the residual.
Higher-risk: Carbon neutral.
Moderate: Working toward carbon neutrality — reductions first, removals for the residual.
Higher-risk: Carbon neutral.
Reviewer attack memo
How an adversary will challenge it:
- Relying mainly on offsets
- No stated boundary
- No reduction-first plan
Launch decision matrix
| Channel | Status | Required before publish |
|---|---|---|
| Website / digital copy | YELLOW | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
| Packaging artwork | RED | Don't print the unqualified claim until the evidence is complete. |
| Retailer / marketplace listing | YELLOW | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
| Social media | YELLOW | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
| Investor / ESG report | YELLOW | Disclose boundary, reductions achieved, and offset details. |
Action plan
- Replace the claim with safer wording (e.g. “Cradle-to-gate footprint cut 28% since 2020 (ISO 14067); residual addressed with certified removals.”).
- Collect the missing documents listed in this report.
- If sold or claimed in California, publish the AB 1305 carbon-disclosure page.
- Have legal review the final copy before packaging goes to print.
- Re-run Evisentra once the missing evidence is supplied.
Assumptions used (until clarified)
- Assumed: 'A reduction pathway — offsets used only for the residual, not as the primary basis.' is not yet evidenced — it remains Partially met; the verdict reflects that.
- Assumed: 'Offset/removal quality: additionality, permanence, no double counting.' is not yet evidenced — it remains Partially met; the verdict reflects that.
Source ledger
FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.5 (carbon offsets) (source, 2026-06-25); AB 1305 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures) (source, 2026-06-25); Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825) (source, 2026-06-25); DMCC Act 2024 + CMA Green Claims Code (source, 2026-06-25). Method preflight-v0.1 · verification 9a7dd550aa1f2702.
How we judge this
Claim-readiness dimensions score 0–3; evidence items are graded 1–5 (DQR). Full rubric: Claim Readiness Rubric v0.1.
Limits
- Screening decision support, not legal advice or certification.
- Assesses whether the evidence meets the standard; does not re-run experiments.
- Rules are public and re-checkable; your evidence stays private.
Download this report (PDF) Request a human review
© Evisentra (Nutavix LLC). Method, rubric, and templates are proprietary — no resale or template reuse. You own your inputs. Decision support, not legal advice or certification. Terms.