Skip to main content

​
Overview

The compliance gaps view lists findings: the concrete reasons an article is not yet compliant. This reference explains what each finding means, why it matters and how to resolve it. Every finding has three properties:
Requesting information from a supplier does not remove a finding. It changes to Waiting on supplier and remains open until new information has arrived and been reviewed.

​
Geodata

​
Missing geodata

Blocking. No usable plot has been provided for this article.
  • Why it matters: Satellite analysis cannot run without production plots. Art. 9(1)(d) EUDR requires geolocation for every plot.
  • How to resolve it: Import plots yourself — see Plot Import — or request them from the supplier.

​
Invalid plot geometry

Blocking. Analysis rejected some plots’ geolocations because more than 10% of the area overlaps water or urban land. These plots need correction.
  • Why it matters: Land demonstrably unsuitable as production land is not a reliable basis for analysis. The article is Invalid, not Non-compliant: this is a data error, not a risk finding.
  • When Invalid no longer applies: It applies only while rejected geolocation is the sole defect. It becomes Non-compliant if, additionally, (a) an actually analysed plot is not low risk, (b) deforestation or degradation is detected on a plot, or (c) an unresolved hard post-cutoff signal exists.
  • How to resolve it: Open the affected plots and correct their geometry. Common causes are reversed longitude/latitude, an incorrect coordinate format or an overly coarse polygon.

​
Missing production dates

Blocking. One or more plots have no production period.
  • Why it matters: Without the period, it is impossible to determine whether production predates or follows 31 December 2020. The article therefore shows Data missing; internally, the compliance result remains Unknown. Both states block automatic DDS creation.
  • How to resolve it: Add the production period to the plot or request it from the supplier.

​
Unresolved risk indicators

Blocking at high severity; otherwise a warning. Satellite or land-use signals on one or more plots still require evidence or an explanation.
  • Why it matters: EUDR assessment needs evidence that identified land-use risks are negligible (Art. 10 EUDR). An unanswered signal remains a risk.
  • How to resolve it: Upload evidence or add a clear explanation for the affected plots, or ask the supplier.
See Evidence That Resolves a Geo Risk for which evidence resolves a particular signal and when a note alone is sufficient.

​
Each risk indicator explains itself

“Unresolved risk indicators” covers individual findings such as “Forest confirmed by multiple datasets”, “Post-2020 tree loss detected (Hansen GFC)” or “Recent vegetation disturbance alerts detected (GFW)”. Each has its own title, explanation and evidence requirement. The Mitigate risk dialog lists each indicator and its specific requirements. Under Why does this risk exist?, there is also a plain-language summary and a sentence explaining what can resolve the indicator. There are three variants:
  • Only evidence specific to the affected plots can resolve it; a general certificate is insufficient.
  • A valid certificate from a recognised scheme plus your explicit confirmation can resolve it.
  • A valid certificate from a recognised scheme can resolve it.
Read this sentence before requesting a document: it tells you whether a business-level certificate is even suitable.

​
GFW alert coverage not confirmed

Informational only — neither blocking nor a warning. GFW alert coverage could not be confirmed for this plot, so the deforestation assessment relies only on Hansen GFC data.
  • How to resolve it: No action is needed. The finding says only that one source could not provide a confirmed contribution.
  • If two reports differ for the same plot, analyse it again: the display follows the latest analysis run.

​
Evidence awaiting review

Warning. Submitted plot evidence is ready for review.
  • Why it matters: Submitted evidence is not accepted evidence. Your decision turns the submission into a result.
  • How to resolve it: Review the evidence or supplier response. Accept it only if it covers the affected plots and the specific risk; otherwise reject it with a reason.

​
Documents

Warning only while the category is under review. In every other open state — non-compliant, unknown or unclear — it is blocking. Blocking is the default; warning is the exception. A legal risk category, such as land-use rights or forestry law, still lacks acceptable evidence.
  • Why it matters: Legal evidence mitigates an identified risk only if it is valid, relevant and accepted for the correct country and plots.
  • How to resolve it: Upload a valid document or certificate for this risk. If the supplier holds the evidence, send a targeted correction request.
  • Reading progress: The card shows “X of Y required documents uploaded, Z verified”. Uploaded is not verified: verification closes the category.
  • If the document does not exist: The supplier can give a reasoned statement instead. Above the requirement, Supplier states no document exists (…) appears with Accept statement / Reject statement. Accepting it does not satisfy the finding; it remains blocking — see Risk Mitigation.
  • Certificate accepted, category still open? It covers the category only once it reaches every plot of the article in the relevant country. Confirm pending links through Confirm plot coverage — see Certificate plot coverage.
See Legal Risk Categories for the categories and typical evidence.

​
Expired certificate

Blocking. The certificate has expired and no longer supports the current assessment.
  • Why it matters: An expired certificate does not substantiate the current situation. It no longer counts as evidence, even if valid when uploaded.
  • How to resolve it: Request and upload a renewed, valid version. The expired document remains for traceability.

​
Proposed documents for review

Warning. A document has been analysed, but its proposed use needs confirmation or rejection.
  • Why it matters: Assigning a document to a category, country and plots is an analysis proposal, not a decision. Until confirmed, it covers nothing.
  • How to resolve it: Open the proposal, inspect the document and confirm or reject the proposed use.

​
Questionnaire

​
Questionnaire incomplete

Blocking. Answers are missing or indicate a legal risk that still needs clarification.
  • Why it matters: The questionnaire determines which legal risks need mitigation and which evidence is relevant. While it is incomplete, the document requirements are incomplete too.
  • How to resolve it: Open the questionnaire, correct the flagged answers and run the assessment again.
Critical questionnaire issues cannot be resolved by uploading documents. If an answer itself triggers the risk, that answer must be corrected. An additional document does not change it.

​
Where the problem comes from and how to correct it

The red Critical issues box explicitly identifies the source:
These points come from the supplier’s self-declaration. Certificates do not override them; corrections are made through the questionnaire.
Below it are two actions:
  • View answers opens the questionnaire in place and jumps to the first flagged answer.
  • Request questionnaire correction opens the compliance gaps view, where you can Request from supplier or Fill in yourself.
Individual issues are coded and translated into your interface language, not shown as raw English text. Their critical or warning classification comes from the issue definition, not its wording.
The questionnaire belongs to the supplier’s article, not the supplier. Four articles from one supplier therefore produce four similar cards. If another article already has a request, the card says a questionnaire request for another article of this supplier is already open or answered, includes its sent date, and links to it. This does not block anything; it helps avoid requesting the same information four times.
The Documents page shows the same result. The Questionnaire answers row under Documents displays blocking questionnaire issues at the top of the viewer. The row itself is rejected, counted in the page’s issue counter and available through the filter. Warnings alone do not change its status.

​
When an answer is flagged even though it is not itself wrong

Under Art. 13 EUDR, some articles are escalated from low risk to the normal tier: for example, processing or transshipment outside the production country, reported high circumvention risk or high calculated supply-chain complexity. Above a certain number of risk indicators, this triggers a message saying that due diligence has been escalated under Art. 13 to the stated tier. In the questionnaire viewer, answers that contributed to that total are yellow warnings, labelled “This answer was flagged for review”. They are neither violations nor “OK”. An actual violation is red and says “This answer contributed to the non-compliant status”.

​
Questionnaire needs attention

Warning. The questionnaire contains points to review before completing the assessment, but they do not block compliance.
  • How to resolve it: Review them and correct the answers where appropriate. You can also proceed to DDS with the warning open.

​
What blocks the DDS?

A finding’s severity blocks nothing by itself. It is a work priority determining label colour, category counters and sorting in the compliance gaps view. No DDS path reads it. Two other things block automatic DDS creation:
  1. The article’s overall compliance status. Only Compliant and Not required (before cutoff) pass. Any other status — Non-compliant, Invalid, Under review or Unknown — blocks automation. A missing compliance result also blocks it: automation deliberately fails closed.
  2. Unresolved hard post-cutoff signals on the article’s plots.
This block applies only to automation. Manual DDS creation, the REST API and transmission to TRACES deliberately remain unblocked: they display a prominent warning but let you proceed. You remain responsible for deciding to submit with open findings and for justifying that decision to the authority.
This table describes the dialog label, not whether the finding blocks a DDS:
Warning does not mean harmless. The finding that no change dataset observed the plot after the cutoff is labelled a warning, but sets the article to Non-compliant, blocking automatic DDS creation until addressed. For DDS purposes, always read the article’s overall status, not an individual label’s colour.
Warnings do not disappear on their own. They remain visible so leaving one open is a conscious decision.

​
Where to find findings

While gaps remain, all three entry points open the same view with the same findings, differing only in scope.

Risk Mitigation

The compliance gaps view and its workflow.

Evidence Acceptance

Which evidence actually resolves a geo risk.

What Is Missing for This Supplier?

Supplier gap labels and what to provide.

Status Glossary

What article and supplier statuses mean.