For Independent EPD Verifiers

Verification volume is growing. Your workspace should match.

Third-party EPD verification is becoming high-volume work as DPP mandates kick in. Terrave's verifier portal gives independent verifiers a structured workspace — side-by-side material review, PCR checklist, issue workflow — replacing scattered email chains and spreadsheets.

Standards:EN 15804+A2ISO 14025EN 16908PCR-based checklistsCRE audit log

What DPP mandates mean for verifiers

DPP mandates are expanding verifier workload

EU CPR 2024/3110 and ESPR require third-party verified EPDs across hundreds of construction product categories. The volume of verification assignments is set to grow significantly from 2025 onwards.

EN 15804+A2 verification requires PCR compliance checking

A2-version verification is not a simple data check. Verifiers must confirm PCR-specific requirements are met: correct indicators, valid modules, data quality standards, and declared unit consistency.

Verifier portal reduces review time by eliminating re-entry

Manufacturers submit complete evidence packages through Terrave. Verifiers receive structured data — not PDFs — with material matches pre-mapped and PCR checklist pre-populated. No manual extraction.

Audit trail is immutable — every comment, every version

Every interaction in the Terrave verifier workflow is timestamped and signed. The full issue log, resolution history, and version record are preserved and cannot be altered after the fact.

Built for verifiers

A structured workspace, not another email thread.

01

Side-by-side review, not email chains.

Manufacturer submits verification assignment. Verifier sees CanonicalRecord data alongside the original source documents. Material match table, impact calculations, and evidence package — all in one view. No PDFs, no spreadsheets, no email attachments.

The review workspace shows declared values, background dataset references, and module-level results on the left — with source documents and uploaded evidence accessible on the right. Context stays together throughout the review.

Evidence package contents

CanonicalRecord dataStructured product environmental data
Material match tableInput mapped to background datasets
Module-level resultsA1–D with all required indicators
Background studyLCA methodology and data quality
Source documentsBills of materials, plant energy data
PCR referenceApplicable PCR version and scope
02

PCR checklist, auto-populated.

Required indicators, required modules, valid_until, data quality requirements — all surfaced automatically from the PCR. Verifier sees what's missing before reviewing the data. Blocking issues flagged immediately.

PCR-specific requirements are layered on top of the base EN 15804+A2 checklist. Where the PCR is stricter — for example, mandating additional lifecycle modules or specific primary data requirements — those requirements appear as separate checklist items with their source reference.

All mandatory EN 15804+A2 indicators

Auto-checked

GWP-total, GWP-fossil, GWP-bio, GWP-luluc, ODP, AP, EP, POCP + all resource indicators

PCR-required lifecycle modules

Auto-checked

Modules A1–A3 mandatory; PCR-specific C + D requirements flagged

Data quality thresholds

Verifier confirms

Time coverage, geographic representativeness, technology representativeness

Valid declared unit

Auto-checked

Unit matches PCR-specified functional equivalent

Background dataset currency

Auto-checked

EF 3.1 dataset references confirmed against PCR valid_until

03

Comment workflow with full audit trail.

Raise issues on specific fields. Manufacturer resolves. Issues tracked through open to in-review to resolved. Every interaction timestamped, signed, and immutable. CRE-compliant audit log.

Issues can be raised at the field level — a specific GWP value, a data quality justification, a module boundary decision. The manufacturer responds in-thread. The full exchange is preserved in the issue log and exported as part of the verifier statement package.

Issue workflow states

open

Verifier raises issue on a specific field or calculation

Verifier
in-review

Manufacturer acknowledges and provides updated data or explanation

Manufacturer
resolved

Verifier accepts resolution — issue closed with verifier note

Verifier
rejected

Verifier rejects resolution — issue escalated or assignment returned

Verifier
archived

Completed assignment locked — full log exported and version-signed

System
04

Benchmark against similar EPDs.

TerraBase panel shows comparable EPDs from the same product category. Verifier sees where this product sits in the GWP distribution — low, median, or high — against verified reference data.

Benchmarking is not prescriptive — it does not determine pass or fail. But outliers at either end of the distribution are worth scrutiny. A product reporting GWP significantly below the category median warrants a closer look at data quality and allocation choices. TerraBase surfaces the context.

TerraBase coverage

54,000+ EPDs

Global, multi-registry

Product categories

180+

EN 15804 classification

GWP distribution

P10 – P90

Per declared unit

Comparable set

Same PCR scope

Filtered to matching methodology

Data quality tiers

3 levels

Verified, scraped, modelled

Benchmark export

Included

In verifier statement package

Outputs

Every deliverable from one structured workflow.

Verified EPD package, verifier statement, issue log, and PCR compliance report — all generated from the same verified record.

Verified EPD package

Complete EN 15804+A2 EPD with all required indicators, modules, and verifier statement attached.

Verifier statement PDF

Version-locked PDF pre-populated from the record — PCR reference, scope, declared unit, and verifier signature block.

Issue resolution log

Full chronological record of issues raised, manufacturer responses, and verifier decisions with timestamps.

Version-locked record export

Immutable snapshot of the CanonicalRecord at point of verification — reference for any future audit.

PCR compliance report

Auto-generated checklist showing each PCR requirement, status, and evidence reference.

The process

From assignment to verifier statement.

01

Accept assignment

Receive the verification assignment with the full evidence package already structured — CanonicalRecord data, source documents, and PCR checklist pre-populated. No document requests, no email coordination.

02

Review record and evidence

Work through the side-by-side review workspace. PCR checklist auto-populated. Material match table, module-level results, and background dataset references all accessible without switching tools.

03

Raise and resolve issues

Raise issues on specific fields. Manufacturer responds in-thread. Issues move from open through in-review to resolved. Full exchange timestamped and preserved in the audit log.

04

Issue verifier statement

Once all issues are resolved, generate the verifier statement PDF. Version-locked to this exact record. PCR compliance report and issue resolution log included in the package.

FAQ

Verifier questions, answered.

How do verifiers access Terrave?

Verifiers are invited by manufacturers when a verification assignment is created. You receive an email with a direct link to the assignment workspace. No separate account creation is required — the invitation grants scoped access to that record and its associated documents. Verifiers who work with multiple manufacturers can manage all active assignments from a single dashboard.

How are verification assignments created?

The manufacturer initiates the assignment from their Terrave dashboard, selecting the product record, the PCR under which the EPD is being declared, and the assigned verifier. Once created, the verifier receives the full evidence package: CanonicalRecord data, background study, material match table, and source documents. No manual handoff or file transfer required.

How long does a typical review take?

Review time depends on the product complexity and completeness of the evidence package. For a straightforward single-product EPD with a complete submission, most verifiers complete the review in two to four hours. The PCR checklist and material match table reduce time spent locating information. Issues raised through the workflow are resolved asynchronously — no scheduling required.

What happens if there are conflicting standards requirements?

Terrave surfaces the PCR requirements alongside the general EN 15804+A2 requirements. Where a PCR introduces additional or more stringent requirements — for example, a product-specific PCR that mandates additional lifecycle modules or specific data quality levels — these are flagged separately in the checklist. Verifiers can annotate the basis for each decision in the issue log.

How is the verifier statement generated?

Once all issues are resolved and the verifier marks the assignment complete, Terrave generates the verifier statement PDF pre-populated with the record identifiers, PCR reference, verification scope, declared unit, and verifier details. The statement is version-locked to the specific record snapshot — any subsequent manufacturer changes create a new version and invalidate the existing statement.

What does Terrave cost for verifiers?

Verifiers do not pay to use the Terrave portal. Access to verification assignments is included in the manufacturer's subscription. Verifier accounts are provisioned at no charge and cover all active assignments. For high-volume verifiers or programme operators managing multiple manufacturers, volume pricing is available — contact us for details.

Ready to start

Structured verification. Not email threads.

Side-by-side review, PCR checklist, issue workflow, and immutable audit trail. Verifier accounts are free.

Verifier access is free. Assignments are initiated by manufacturers on their Terrave subscription.