Skip to main content

​
Overview

“I uploaded a document — why is the risk still open?” is the most common risk-mitigation question. Usually the reason is the same: Polygon One checks whether the evidence answers the specific signal on the specific plot in the specific period, not simply whether evidence exists. This page explains the system’s decision rules.
These rules describe Polygon One’s behaviour. They are not legal advice and do not replace your own assessment under Arts. 10 and 11 EUDR. When in doubt, seek an expert review — see When to escalate.

​
Three questions determine acceptance

1

Is the production country known?

Without a recorded production country, no evidence is accepted automatically. Legality is assessed against the production country’s law; without a country there is no benchmark. Add the country to the plot before collecting evidence.
2

How strong is the signal?

A baseline signal that forest is present requires less than confirmed forest loss after the cutoff. The four signal strengths are listed below.
3

How specific is the evidence?

A document covering this exact plot and the period in question carries more weight than a general business certificate. Only the former is enough for the strongest signals.

​
The four signal strengths

Deliberate exception: “Deforestation detected (no agricultural signal)” at medium severity is treated as ambiguous, not confirmed loss. “Post-2020 deforestation signal (TMF AnnualChange)” is also deliberately ambiguous: its detector can retrigger and no independent change dataset confirms it. It creates a need for review, not a finding of established conversion.

​
Acceptance rules: document, certificate or note

These cell values are the app’s three evidence decisions. Risk Mitigation explains each and what you take responsibility for with Confirm and resolve. When More plot-specific evidence required applies, the app offers Upload plot-specific evidence directly.

​
Can I accept a supplier response without verified evidence?

Yes, through the operator override. This exception is intentional. It does not turn the response into evidence; it substitutes your documented responsibility. If a supplier response exists — a note or simple document — and it is not certificate-backed, the app also offers Accept response beside the recommended upload. It explains that acceptance is recorded in the compliance report as an operator-accepted supplier statement without independently verified evidence. This action is unavailable for certificate-backed resolutions. Those still require plot-specific evidence.

​
Is a note enough to mitigate a geo risk?

For a baseline or ambiguous signal, yes, with your explicit confirmation. A note is not verified evidence, so the system does not resolve the finding automatically. You accept the explanation, and the report records an operator-accepted statement. For a recent alert or confirmed loss, not as your own new entry. Once the finding requires more plot-specific evidence, the app hides the Evidence / Note choice and offers only a plot-specific evidence upload. The only route without evidence is the operator override above, applied to an existing, non-certificate-backed supplier response.
An uploaded document is not yet verified evidence. Review determines its row in this table: passing means verified evidence (first or second row); failing means invalid evidence (last row). Until then, the finding is unresolved. The category card distinguishes uploaded and verified counts.

​
Two cases that never pass automatically

A self-issued document and a document whose coordinates exclude the plot always require your decision, regardless of the table above. Both are described in Risk Mitigation.

​
Certificates have their own rules

Certifications such as FSC, PEFC, RSPO and Rainforest Alliance can cover several legal categories at once. Additional conditions apply to geo risks:
  • An expired certificate no longer counts as evidence, even if it was valid when uploaded.
  • A certificate-backed resolution needs the actual document on file. A reference without a file does not count.
  • A certificate-backed resolution cannot be replaced by manual acceptance. To accept a signal on your own responsibility, use a note or plot-specific document without a certificate reference.
  • Certificate scope also matters. Only a site-scope certificate covers legal categories. A purely chain-of-custody or mass-balance/credit certificate assesses the goods chain, not the plot’s legality, and gives no legal coverage however valid it is. If no scope is recorded, the system treats the certificate as site-scope.

​
A certificate covers only the plots assigned to it

An accepted certificate covers a legal category only when it reaches every plot of the article in the relevant production country. Polygon One checks plot by plot. A plot is linked automatically if the certificate holder matches its recorded producer and no regional information contradicts the match. You decide the assignment for every remaining plot. While even one plot is undecided, the certificate contributes nothing to that category: it exists and is accepted but does not yet count. The supplier’s questionnaire answers for the category are still assessed, and the category remains open.
A certificate accepted for one production country says nothing about plots in another. Only the plots in that country count toward its coverage.

​
What the certificate shows

The certificate’s Plot coverage section has up to three lines: If the certificate has no links, or has expired and can substantiate nothing, these lines are replaced by This certificate covers no plots. If the article has no origin plots at all, the prompt instead asks you to assign them, record the producer and analyse again. A certificate whose links you have all rejected is different: it still shows … marked as not covered. For each pending plot, short labels explain the proposal: Producer matches or Producer differs, Document region: …, Region differs, Period overlaps, No period overlap, and the area difference. The plot’s region and size appear in grey beside its name. In the article’s compliance overview, Accepted certificates shows the same state more briefly: … plots awaiting confirmation or Not assigned to any plot yet, plus Valid until … or Expired on ….

​
How to confirm coverage

1

Find pending assignments

Open the certificate in the document view, or use Confirm plot coverage in the compliance gaps view, which lists all files with pending assignments.
2

Decide for a producer in one action

The bulk action Confirm: covers all … plots of … provides one button per producer. It asks whether the certificate holder is the producer of those plots. Plots without a producer appear in a final No producer specified group. This action applies only to the article the certificate belongs to here and reports the number of confirmed plot links.
3

Decide individual cases separately

Each plot has Confirm and Reject. An individual decision has a wider scope than the bulk action: it applies to this certificate/plot pair in all article copies. The app explicitly reports that coverage was confirmed or removed in all article copies. The decision is logged and survives reanalysis. To reverse a rejection, use Confirm in the rejected-plots list.
Pending and rejected are different. A pending assignment keeps a category with an identified risk at Pending review: the article is neither ready as compliant nor non-compliant. If you explicitly reject one plot and all others are confirmed, the category has a real gap: the certificate no longer substantiates it, and an identified risk falls to Non-compliant.Because individual decisions affect all article copies, rejecting coverage in one article can also make another article non-compliant. This happens only where that category has an identified risk and no other certificate or document covers the plot, and only at the next assessment run, not at the moment of clicking. Reject only coverage the certificate really does not provide.
If a category stays open despite an accepted certificate, the plot’s producer is usually the cause: missing or named differently from the certificate. Record the legal name printed on the certificate so automatic matching can apply. If reanalysis changes the information on which you based a decision, the app presents the affected assignments again.

​
Which evidence fits which finding?

The app gives a specific suggestion on each plot. These are typical suggestions:
The table describes the findings. The last finding appears in the app as No post-2020 change dataset available. Its title and explanation currently remain English even in the German interface; they describe the same situation.
Not every finding can be mitigated, and that is intentional. Only deforestation and degradation findings are mitigatable. Purely informational indicators — agroforestry detections, confidence information and missing coverage from individual sources — require no separate mitigation; they disappear with the associated risk finding.
Degradation applies only to wood. Degradation findings are not gaps for non-wood commodities because EUDR defines forest degradation only for wood. This covers primary forest degradation, natural forest degradation, TMF degradation and GFT degradation data unavailable. The last also belongs to the degradation family and is suppressed outside wood.

​
What evidence cannot do

A missing measurement never lowers risk. If no dataset observed the plot after the cutoff, the app reports that instead of treating the plot as clear. The finding stays open, sets the article to Non-compliant and blocks automatic DDS creation until answered.
It is, however, easier to answer than measured loss. The system treats it as an ambiguous signal, not confirmed loss: a measurement gap is not established conversion. Under the table above, an explanation with your explicit confirmation is enough; verified evidence, even general evidence, resolves it automatically. Plot-specific evidence is the strongest route, but not the only one. Also:
  • A FLEGT licence from a country without an operational FLEGT licensing system substantiates nothing and is rejected with a blocking finding — see Risk Mitigation.
  • A sent supplier request is not a resolution. The finding is Waiting on supplier and stays open.
  • A supplier response is not a resolution. Your acceptance or rejection is what closes the finding.
  • Rejected evidence must not silently be marked complete. Read the feedback and request a suitable correction.
  • An accepted supplier statement that no document exists does not satisfy the category. It records your review of the explanation; the requirement remains open and blocking — see Risk Mitigation.

​
When to escalate

Polygon One does not make a legal judgment. Seek expert review when:
  • Confirmed forest loss exists and you cannot obtain plot-specific evidence for the relevant period.
  • You want to accept a signal on your own responsibility without verified evidence. That acceptance is recorded in the compliance report as an operator-accepted supplier statement without independently verified evidence.
  • The production country’s legal situation is unclear or the supplier gives contradictory legality information.
  • A plot repeatedly shows recurring alerts despite existing evidence.
Art. 11 EUDR explicitly includes independent surveys, audits and other assessments, as well as supporting suppliers in achieving compliance, among mitigation measures. These are the intended next steps when collecting documents alone is insufficient.

Findings Catalogue

Each finding’s meaning, severity and resolution.

Risk Mitigation

The compliance gaps view and its workflow.

Risk Assessment

Which satellite datasets produce the signals.

Evidence Upload

Upload and assign documents.