Sample report — packaging recyclable claim
This is the artifact we send experts — a real run of the engine. Yours would use your own claim and evidence.
Claim: Our bottle is 100% recyclable. · market US · Recyclable / 100% recyclable
Report EVS-57ec1c403aa0af9a-v1 · v1 · generated 2026-06-28 · rules current as of 2026-06-25
Verdict: Unsubstantiated — high greenwashing risk
Evidence coverage — 50% (1/2 requirements met)
Readiness
RED
RED
Evidence confidence
50%
50%
Legal review
recommended
recommended
LCA review
optional
optional
Decision
Publish as written? No — do not publish as written
Required before launch:
- Local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence (not just material type).
Recommended wording: Designed for recycling where collection facilities exist.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Which markets / regions is this sold in? | Recyclability depends on local facilities. | market list |
| Do all components recycle together (cap / label / liner / adhesive)? | Mixed materials break recyclability. | component breakdown |
| What share of consumers can access facilities that accept the FULL package? | FTC: a substantial majority (~60%). | access data |
Rule map & risk by market
| Market | Risk | Rule | Why it applies | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | RED | FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.12 (recyclable) | Unqualified 'recyclable' needs facilities available to a substantial majority (~60%) of consumers where sold; caps/labels/liners must qualify too. | 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 | RED | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material is technically recyclable AND collected/recycled in the markets sold. | Resin code PET #1, How2Recycle label | Met | Met by E2 (quality 3/5). | You (market + recycling-access data) | — | |
| Local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence (not just material type). | — | Missing | No evidence submitted for this requirement. | Local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence (not just material type). | You (market + recycling-access data) | High |
Evidence inventory
| Evidence | Type | Quality | What it does NOT prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resin code PET #1 | spec_sheet | 1/5 | self-declared (not independent); no named standard; not third-party-verifiable; no functional unit / boundary |
| How2Recycle label | certificate | 3/5 | no named standard |
Exact documents to collect
- Recycling-access / facility-availability data for the markets sold
- Design-for-recycling assessment (APR / RecyClass)
- How2Recycle (or equivalent) label documentation
- Component-level recyclability (cap / label / liner / adhesive)
Component coverage
- Body / container — confirm it qualifies
- Cap / closure — confirm it qualifies
- Label — confirm it qualifies
- Adhesive — confirm it qualifies
- Liner / coating — confirm it qualifies
Questions to ask your supplier
- Are the body, cap/closure, label, adhesive, and liner all recyclable together in one stream?
- Which markets/regions is this sold in?
- What share of consumers there have access to facilities that accept the FULL package?
- Can you provide APR / How2Recycle / third-party design-for-recycling documentation?
Ready-to-send evidence request
Subject: Evidence needed to substantiate our environmental claim To support the claim "Our bottle is 100% recyclable.", please provide: - Are the body, cap/closure, label, adhesive, and liner all recyclable together in one stream? - Which markets/regions is this sold in? - What share of consumers there have access to facilities that accept the FULL package? - Can you provide APR / How2Recycle / third-party design-for-recycling documentation? Documents still needed: - Recycling-access / facility-availability data for the markets sold - Design-for-recycling assessment (APR / RecyClass) - How2Recycle (or equivalent) label documentation - Component-level recyclability (cap / label / liner / adhesive) Please include dates, issuers, and any registry / serial references. Thank you.
Safer wording options
Conservative: Designed for recycling where collection facilities exist.
Moderate: Recyclable in many communities — check local availability.
Higher-risk: 100% recyclable.
Moderate: Recyclable in many communities — check local availability.
Higher-risk: 100% recyclable.
Reviewer attack memo
How an adversary will challenge it:
- Confusing 'recyclable' with 'recycled'
- Ignoring local infrastructure
- Absolute '100% recyclable' covering caps/labels/liners too
Launch decision matrix
| Channel | Status | Required before publish |
|---|---|---|
| Website / digital copy | RED | 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 | RED | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
| Social media | RED | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
| Investor / ESG report | RED | Qualify the wording and keep the evidence trail. |
Action plan
- Replace the claim with safer wording (e.g. “Designed for recycling where collection facilities exist.”).
- Collect the missing documents listed in this report.
- 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: 'Local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence (not just material type).' is not yet evidenced — it remains Missing; the verdict reflects that.
Source ledger
FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.12 (recyclable) (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 57ec1c403aa0af9a.
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.