Sample report — packaging recyclable claim

Decision support for claim-review conversations — not a certificate, legal opinion, or regulatory approval.

Claim: Our bottle is 100% recyclable. · market US · Recyclable / 100% recyclable

Report EVS-248e9650177aa70b-v1 · v1 · generated 2026-08-26 · rules current as of 2026-06-25 · Rubric v1.0 · method preflight-v1.5 (rule rows carry per-row last-checked dates)

Version history: v1 — initial report (2026-08-26); rule-base/engine preflight-v1.5, rubric v1.0. Remediation-recheck addenda are issued as separate, dated documents.

Three conclusions — read separately

A claim can be supported under one of these and still unready under another.

Current publish decision

What you cannot support

• Our bottle is 100% recyclable.The claim as written is not supported yet — Unsubstantiated — high substantiation risk.
• 100% recyclable.Higher-risk wording — unsupported until every condition in the wording ladder is met and counsel has reviewed it.

Fastest route forward

1. Close the top blocker first: The material is actually collected and recycled in the markets sold — local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence, not just material type. (owner: You (market + recycling-access data)).
2. Send the ready-to-send evidence request — it asks for every missing document in one round.
3. Submit the evidence in your clarification round; the revised report is included.

Market and channel decision

Remediation board

IMPOSSIBLE Artwork lock is 2026-09-18, 31 business days from this report. The critical remediation path is 35–42 business days, so the current schedule is IMPOSSIBLE without changing the claim, scope, evidence route, or artwork date.

Internal effort (remaining)

6–12 h

External cost (USD)

USD 2,800.00–3,500.00

Business-day calculations exclude Saturdays and Sundays only. No public-holiday calendar is configured for this engagement, so real elapsed time may be longer than the figures shown.

If you proceed while this report remains HOLD

This is not a recommendation and not permission. It is what is on the table if the claim is published in its current wording before the blockers close.

Wording that is not supported

Our bottle is 100% recyclable.

Markets

US, US

Products

SAMPLE-500ML · SAMPLE 500ml PET bottle · clear; SAMPLE-750ML · SAMPLE 750ml PET bottle · clear; SAMPLE-1L · SAMPLE 1L PET bottle · tinted

Channels held

Website / digital copy, Packaging artwork, Retailer / marketplace listing, Social media, Investor / ESG report

Unresolved blockers

• The material is actually collected and recycled in the markets sold — local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence, not just material type. — MISSING
• Material and format are technically recyclable (composition, closures, labels, size). — SUPPORTED WITH QUALIFICATION

• No monetary exposure is recorded for this instrument in the maintained rule record. Absence of a figure here is not an indication that exposure is small.

Amounts shown are statutory MAXIMUM potential exposure recorded in the cited source. They are a ceiling, not a prediction, an expected penalty, an estimate of what would happen, or a recommendation. Actual outcomes depend on facts, conduct, and regulator discretion, and are a matter for counsel.

Authority classifications describe the nature of each source. Evisentra summaries are provided for readiness assessment and do not constitute legal advice or a determination of legal compliance.

Business judgment — not a sourced legal consequence

• Artwork already printed against the unsupported wording is reprinted rather than amended, and the cost falls on the print run, not on the review.
• Stock in the channel may have to be relabelled or withdrawn, which is a distribution problem rather than a marketing one.
• Retailer and marketplace listing teams increasingly ask for substantiation on environmental wording; a challenge from that direction arrives without a regulator being involved at all.
• A claim withdrawn after publication is a matter of public record, and the withdrawal is usually more visible than the claim was.

No publication decision is recorded against this report. A decision to proceed is recorded only on an explicit, named client instruction — never inferred from silence.

Recording a decision to proceed changes nothing above it. The publish decision, the supported wording, every evidence state, and the verification fingerprint are unaffected — this section records what the client chose to do with the finding, not a different finding.

Evidence states are stated in words on every row — CONFIRMED / SUPPORTED WITH QUALIFICATION / CONTRADICTED / MISSING / STALE / NOT APPLICABLE / EXPERT REVIEW / UNRESOLVED — never by color alone.

Evidence X-Ray

Scope and SKU coverage

Scope shape

Product line — several named products sharing evidence

Products in scope

3

Markets

US

Range readiness

MISSING

Range publish decision

HOLD

Range readiness is the worst applicable product result — one product short of coverage holds the whole range.

At the range-limiting result: SAMPLE-500ML · SAMPLE 500ml PET bottle · clear; SAMPLE-750ML · SAMPLE 750ml PET bottle · clear; SAMPLE-1L · SAMPLE 1L PET bottle · tinted.

A cell reads UNRESOLVED when no confirmed applicability link ties the supporting evidence to that product. It is not a finding against the product — it is the absence of a link, and it holds the range until someone records one.

Shared evidence — what each record actually covers

Strongest support vs strongest challenge

Reviewer attack memo

How an adversary will challenge it:

Clarifications needed (answer once)

Batch these to your team; anything left unanswered is recorded as an assumption rather than re-running the report.

Evidence inventory and source cards

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)

Rule map & risk by market

Selected market first; the others are a watchlist — they apply only if you sell or advertise there. Complete authority, jurisdiction, and checked-date detail per row.

Authority classifications describe the nature of each source. Evisentra summaries are provided for readiness assessment and do not constitute legal advice or a determination of legal compliance.

Assessment basis

Every authority this assessment draws on, classified by kind. Evisentra's own procedural rules are labelled — they are derived from the external criteria and are not themselves legal requirements.

This report reflects the cited rules and standards as of 2026-06-25 (the oldest verification date among the cited rules; each row carries its own last-checked date). Rules change — the included 90-day remediation recheck re-applies the method as encoded at recheck time.

1 of the standards cited here is a paid document. Evisentra holds no licensed copy, so each is named and characterised from public sources rather than read. Every one of them is cited alongside a free, checkable authority that the determination already rests on, so no finding here depends on a document you cannot open.

Paid documents cited: ISO 14021:2026 (Ed. 3, June 2026). Paid standard. Evisentra does not hold a licensed copy; the requirement note is characterised from public sources, not from the standard's text.

Criteria crosswalk

Each evidence requirement, the external criteria it is derived from, the evidence submitted against it, and the determination — the audit trail from criterion to conclusion.

Procedure performed on every requirement: Slot assignment; scope inspection against the claim wording; independence classification; standard-recognition check; registry-verifiability check; expiry check; value-consistency check.

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 ladder (lower-risk drafts — subject to evidence and counsel review)

1. Conservative tierRecyclable — check your local program

   CONDITIONAL — not yet supported

   Evidence required

   • Material and format are technically recyclable (composition, closures, labels, size).
   • The material is actually collected and recycled in the markets sold — local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence, not just material type.

   Restrictions

   Subject to evidence and counsel review before publication.

   Progression

   Close every prerequisite in the Current publish decision.

2. Moderate tierRecyclable in communities with access (facility-access evidence on file) — check local availability.

   CONDITIONAL — not yet supported

   Evidence required

   • Material and format are technically recyclable (composition, closures, labels, size).
   • The material is actually collected and recycled in the markets sold — local recycling-rate / facility-availability evidence, not just material type.

   Restrictions

   Market rules in the rule map apply to this wording.

   Progression

   Close the MISSING and CONTRADICTED rows in the Evidence X-Ray.

3. Higher-risk tier100% recyclable.

   NOT SUPPORTED

   Evidence required

   • Every requirement CONFIRMED, plus counsel review.

   Restrictions

   Do not publish in any market while blockers remain.

   Progression

   All X-Ray rows CONFIRMED and market rules satisfied.

How we judge this

Claim-readiness dimensions score 0–3; evidence items are graded 1–5 (DQR). Full rubric: Claim Readiness Rubric v1.0. Dimension-level rubric scoring is applied by the human reviewer in paid engagements; this generated layer applies the method version to the reviewer's finalized classifications.

No independent expert sign-off is recorded for this report version — an unsigned memo is never presented as independent review.

Decision delta: this is the first issued version, so there is no previous version to compare against.

Rule Delta: no rule-base change is recorded against this report version. Rule changes are detected from official sources, reviewed by a human, and issued as a new report version.

Assumptions used (until clarified)

• Assumed: 'Material and format are technically recyclable (composition, closures, labels, size).' is not yet evidenced — it remains Partially met; the verdict reflects that.
• Assumed: 'The material is actually collected and recycled in the markets sold — 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 · checked 2026-06-25
• Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (PPWR), Article 6 — recyclabilitysource · checked 2026-07-15
• Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825)source · checked 2026-06-25
• DMCC Act 2024 + CMA Green Claims Codesource · checked 2026-06-25
• Competition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1)/(b.2) (Bill C-59) + Competition Bureau environmental-claims guidelinessource · checked 2026-07-03
• Loi AGEC — Décret 2022-748 (consumer environmental info)source · checked 2026-07-09
• Australian Consumer Law + ACCC environmental-claims guidancesource · checked 2026-07-09

Method preflight-v1.5 · verification 248e9650177aa70b.

Limits

• Screening decision support, not legal advice or certification.
• Assesses whether the evidence meets the standard; does not re-run experiments.
• Produced by applying the public Claim Readiness Rubric; no compensation depends on the finding.
• Rules are public and re-checkable; your evidence stays private.
• Some cited standards (ISO, EN, ASTM, AS) are paid documents. Evisentra names them and describes what they require, characterised from public sources — it does not hold licensed copies and does not reproduce their text. Where a requirement rests on such a document alone, the report marks it 'needs external reviewer'.
• AI helps read and organize evidence; the verdict is made against the public rubric, not by a model. Your documents are not used to train AI models.
• Includes one remediation recheck within 90 days — submit evidence addressing the gaps above for a Recheck Addendum (same product, claim, material, supplier, and market). Scope changes are quoted separately.
• Assesses the claim wording submitted; on-pack symbols, logos, and colors also make claims (an unqualified chasing-arrows device is an unqualified recyclable claim) and are reviewed against the submitted artwork in the engagement's human review.

Download this report (PDF) Request a human review

© Evisentra (Nutavix LLC). The report, its template, rubric, and identifying marks are proprietary — no resale or template reuse; removing or altering the marks, or presenting an unreviewed draft or sample as a reviewed report, is prohibited and may be unlawful. You own your inputs. Decision support, not legal advice or certification. Terms.