What you actually receive.
You are not buying a site visit. You are buying a document that has to survive being read by your compliance officer, your customer, and potentially a regulator. Here is how that document is built, and an anonymised extract from a real one.
Written to be checked, not believed.
Every finding carries the evidence it rests on. A reader who disagrees with our conclusion can go to the same source and reach their own — which is the only version of a verification report that is worth anything in a dispute.
- Each finding states its source: a register lookup, a document, an observation, or an interview
- Vietnamese source documents reproduced in full alongside translation, not summarised away
- Photographs dated and located, with what they show stated plainly
- What we could not verify is listed explicitly — gaps are findings too
- Findings mapped to the regulation you must satisfy, clause by clause
- A one-page summary at the front, for the director who has ten minutes
- 1. Summary and risk rating1 page
- 2. Entity and licensing2–3 pages
- 3. Production capacity observed3–5 pages
- 4. Origin and supply chain3–6 pages
- 5. Certificates and validation2–4 pages
- 6. Screening results1–2 pages
- 7. Regulatory mapping2–3 pages
- 8. Evidence annexvariable
Typical full report runs 18–30 pages including the evidence annex. A Preliminary Check runs 4–6 pages and covers sections 1, 2, and 6 only.
A page from a real report.
Identifying details are redacted. The structure, the language, and the way a finding is evidenced are unchanged.
Compliance Verification Report
Wood furniture manufacturer · Quy Nhơn
The entity is legally constituted and produces at the address given. Two findings require resolution before a first order: the FSC chain-of-custody certificate presented does not appear on the issuing body’s public register under this entity’s name, and approximately 40% of stated capacity is performed by an undisclosed subcontractor in a neighbouring commune.
Evidence: Eight assembly stations counted on the main floor against fourteen indicated in the supplier profile (photograph 3.1–3.4, taken 2026–00–00, main hall). Production manager stated in interview that finishing and upholstery for larger orders are performed by a second workshop, approximately 11 km away, which was not disclosed in the supplier profile and which we were not permitted to visit on this engagement.
Why this matters: undisclosed subcontracting places a facility outside the buyer’s audited scope. Any social or environmental compliance assurance obtained for the primary site does not extend to it.
Evidence: PDF certificate provided by the supplier reproduced at Annex C. Search of the FSC public certificate database on 2026–00–00 returned no active certificate under the entity name, registration number, or address. The code shown on the certificate resolves to a different company in XXXXXXX Province. We did not conclude the document is falsified; we record that it could not be validated and that the supplier was asked to clarify.
Approximately 30% of timber input is imported sawn material sourced through a domestic trader. The trader provided country of origin but declined to provide plot-level geolocation, stating it was not held. On the evidence available, an EUDR due diligence statement covering this input could not currently be supported.
Second workshop (finishing and upholstery) — access not granted. Payroll records — provided in summary form only; individual timecards not made available. Financial statements — most recent filing is for 0000; no interim figures provided.
This extract is drawn from a real engagement with all identifying details removed and figures altered. The full report for this engagement ran 24 pages including the evidence annex.
Three outcomes, and none of them is a score out of ten.
A numeric supplier score compresses away the thing you actually need: which specific risk, and whether it is fixable. We use three plain ratings and then say exactly what sits behind each.
Proceed
Nothing found that should stop the engagement. Any minor observations are listed, with a note on whether they are worth monitoring.
Proceed with conditions
Specific issues that should be resolved before a first order or a long-term commitment, each stated as a concrete action the supplier can take.
Do not proceed on current evidence
Findings serious enough that we would not commit capital on what is currently documented. We say why, and what would need to change.
A factual record — not a legal opinion.
This matters enough to state plainly rather than bury in a footer. A Field Diligence report documents what we observed, what we validated against a register, and what we could not confirm. It is evidence you can act on and show to others.
It is not any of the following:
- Not a legal opinion. We are not a law firm and do not advise on how a regulation applies to your business. Where findings are mapped to EUDR Article 9, the Lacey Act, or UFLPA, that mapping shows which requirements the evidence speaks to — it does not determine your legal position.
- Not a certification. We are not an accredited certification body and issue no certificate, mark, or approval. Where a supplier holds a BSCI, SMETA, ISO, or FSC certificate, we check it against the issuing body’s register; we do not grant one.
- Not a guarantee of compliance. Filing a Due Diligence Statement, responding to a CBP detention, and assessing whether your risk is negligible remain your decisions, taken with your own legal and compliance advisers.
- Not a warranty of future conduct. A verification describes a supplier at the time it was conducted. Facilities expand, subcontract, and change ownership.
What the report does is put defensible facts in front of the people who have to make those calls. Every engagement is performed under a written service agreement setting out this scope.