Quick snapshot: who on your team owns disclosures and why it matters

• Give a one-sentence summary of your primary disclosure objective for the next filing
• Who on your leadership team will be the primary decision maker for selecting a disclosure solution Options: Chief Sustainability Officer, Controller / Head of Financial Reporting, CFO, Corporate Secretary, Head of IT, Cross-functional committee, Other
• In your last filing cycle, which internal groups were directly involved in producing climate-related numbers Options: Sustainability / ESG, Finance / Controller, Legal / Compliance, Operations, Procurement / Supply chain, IT, Investor relations, Other
• How many people, full time equivalents, worked on disclosure data collection and validation in the last cycle Options: 0-1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-20, More than 20
• Describe any external advisors or auditors who supported your last disclosure and the role they played
• By when does your team need a validated set of disclosure numbers to meet internal review and filing deadlines Options: Immediately (within 2 weeks), Within 1 month, Within 3 months, Within 6 months, No firm deadline

Where delays and surprises typically start

• If a single data failure would make your filing late, which one would it be and why
• What parts of your disclosure process most frequently trigger rework or audit comments
• Walk me through the last time a data mismatch forced you to re-run calculations, who found it, and what the impact was
• How often do last-minute manual edits change the reported numbers in your draft disclosures Options: Almost every report, Often, Occasionally, Rarely
• What is the cost or business impact when a disclosure revision shifts expected figures after board review
• What single operational issue would make your finance or audit committee decline an external vendor-based disclosure approach Options: Data accuracy concerns, Evidence not audit-ready, Security or legal objections, Excessive cost, Lack of vendor references

Where your critical data lives and who controls it

• What primary systems hold your emissions-related data, and which of those are under a single owner who can grant API access Options: ERP / financial ledger, Utility billing system, Procurement / TMS, Travel and expense system, Facilities / IoT, Supply chain data platform, Carbon management tool, Spreadsheets / manual records, Other
• Which of your systems expose APIs or scheduled exports today versus those that only provide manual reports Options: APIs available, Scheduled exports available, Manual reports only, Unknown
• Who in your org is the gatekeeper for utility invoices, travel records, and supplier data, and can they commit to shared access during implementation Options: Can commit to access, Requires approval but likely, No, restricted, Unclear
• Describe the typical data quality issues you encounter with your ERP, utility, or procurement feeds
• Estimate how many distinct data sources will be required to calculate Scope 1, Scope 2, and your top 10 Scope 3 categories Options: 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, More than 20
• Are there any systems or data owners who legally cannot provide the required data or who require lengthy legal review Options: Yes, several, Yes, one, No, Unsure
• If a key source cannot be connected electronically within the project timeline, what contingency would your team use and would that stop the engagement Options: Use manual uploads, Use proxy data, Pause scope for that category, Extend timeline, Cancel project

How confident would an auditor be with your current evidence trail

• What gaps in your current control evidence would cause an assurance provider to request additional testing
• Which calculations or emission factors in your current approach are undocumented or lack an assigned owner Options: Undocumented calculations, Undocumented emission factors, No owner assigned for key calculations, All documented
• Who prepares the narrative and supporting evidence for the disclosure and how is that package archived for later review
• Have you completed any limited or reasonable assurance previously and if so what were the key findings Options: No prior assurance, Limited assurance only, Reasonable assurance, Assurance in progress
• If your assurance provider said your current controls fall short of reasonable assurance would your leadership pause the filing or proceed with qualification Options: Pause filing, Proceed with qualification, Proceed and remediate later, Unsure
• What measurable criteria would you accept as proof that a platform and advisory approach meet auditor expectations Options: Data coverage percentage, Reduction in manual edits, Named owners for each calculation, Audit-ready evidence trail, All of the above, Other

Board, legal, and timeline constraints that can stop everything

• If your audit committee required a three month evidence window before sign off could your team produce it Options: Yes, can produce, Maybe with extra work, No
• Who needs to approve commercial terms, data access, and governance before work can begin and how long does each approver typically take
• Describe any contractual or regulatory restrictions that prevent sharing supplier or facility level data with third parties Options: Yes, multiple restrictions, Yes, one-off NDAs required, No major restrictions, Unsure
• How rigid are your filing deadlines and what is the cut off for making material changes to the submission Options: Firm deadline, no changes allowed, Can accept minor changes, Rolling deadlines
• What's the single nontechnical approval that, if denied, would stop this project from moving forward Options: Board signoff, Legal approval, CFO approval, Security or procurement signoff, Other
• Do you have a standing data protection or legal review process that will require time and resources during onboarding Options: Yes, in-house legal review, Third-party legal review required, No formal process, Unsure

What other solutions are on the table

• Who are the vendors, internal teams, or incumbent providers you are actively considering for disclosure work Options: Incumbent vendor, Big consulting firm, Specialist software vendor, Internal team building a solution, New startup, Other
• Which of those options, if they delivered identical outputs, would you prefer to keep and why
• Has anyone proposed solving disclosure in-house and if so what headcount and timeline did they estimate Options: Yes, with a detailed estimate, Yes, a high level proposal only, No one has proposed in-house, Unsure
• What would have to be true about your current incumbent or internal solution for you to decide not to change vendors
• Imagine a competitor demonstrated a full dry run that matched your expected numbers what would stop you from signing that week Options: Need final commercial terms, Need legal review, Need board briefing, Nothing, we would sign
• Which selection criteria carry the most weight for you for example auditability, integration speed, total cost, or advisory depth Options: Auditability, Integration speed, Total cost of ownership, Advisory and assurance expertise, Data coverage, Vendor references, Platform flexibility

Practical readiness: people, access, and technical constraints

• What internal technical resource or access issue if unresolved would prevent a deployment from starting on the planned date Options: Network or firewall restrictions, Lack of API keys or service accounts, No assigned owner, Insufficient headcount, Other
• Which third-party systems must be connected for a successful deployment and who owns each connection Options: ERP / financial ledger, Utility billing system, Procurement / TMS, Travel and expense, Facilities / IoT, Supply chain data platform, Carbon management tool, Other
• Do your systems have service accounts or API keys available today or will those require provisioning and legal signoff Options: Service accounts available, Require provisioning and approvals, Not possible, Unsure
• How many full time engineers or analysts can your team realistically dedicate during the first 8 weeks of implementation Options: 0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, More than 10
• Suppose the security or procurement team refuses to allow a cloud connection to a supplier portal would your organization halt the project Options: Yes, we would halt, We would seek a workaround, Unclear
• Estimate the time your IT team would require to provide read only access to the primary data sources in business days Options: 1-3 business days, 4-10 business days, 11-20 business days, More than 20 business days

Clear success signals and the earliest next steps

• If this engagement proves the numbers in a single pilot what would unblock immediate executive approval
• Which measurable outcomes will you use to decide the project succeeded such as percentage data coverage reduction in manual edits or board sign off Options: >= 90% data coverage, <= 5% manual edits, Board sign off, External assurance obtained, Meeting filing deadline, Reduced time to draft
• Who must be the named owner for post go live cadence and issue resolution to move from pilot to full roll out Options: Head of Sustainability, Controller / Head of Financial Reporting, IT lead, Program manager, Cross-functional steering committee
• Choose your target go live window Options: Within 2 weeks, Within 1 month, Within next quarter, Within 6 months
• What is the single condition that if met by the pilot would lead your team to execute a commercial agreement within 10 business days Options: Pilot meets agreed accuracy and evidence, Pilot misses accuracy targets, Pilot shows integration gaps, Other

• Solution Experience Session — Platform and Assurance Walkthrough

• Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
• You confirm the demonstrated integration and workflow eliminates the manual reconciliation and aggregation steps you described.
• Provide a representative dataset (raw exports or spreadsheets) and a list of source systems and primary system contacts for a sample integration dry run.
• You confirm the shown evidence capture and control records meet the assurance provider expectations you outlined or identify specific gaps.
• Walk through the integration mapping for your source systems
• Run the sample calculation on the provided dataset and deliver the calculation results, evidence export, and a short gap report before the follow-up session.
• You agree on the remaining acceptance criteria and the immediate next deliverables required to complete a pricing and deployment proposal.
• Prove calculation logic and evidence capture for assurance
• Prepare a proposed implementation milestone plan and resource estimate that maps to the validated acceptance criteria and circulation to the buying committee.
• Review governance, acceptance criteria, and remaining gaps
• Confirm the project decision timeline and name the internal stakeholders who must sign off on acceptance criteria.
• Validate that this maps to your need

• Solution Experience Session — Platform and Assurance Walkthrough
• Solution Experience Deck
• Solution Brief — Platform and Assurance

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Configure ERP and utility data connectors
• Ingest and reconcile emissions source data
• Implement Scope 1 and 2 calculation engine
• Configure Scope 3 category calculations
• Integrate travel and expense emissions
• Onboard supplier emissions data and scorecards
• Deploy internal controls and audit trail
• Generate SEC and IFRS-formatted disclosures
• Build disclosure-ready regulatory templates
• Run full disclosure dry run
• Deliver assurance workpapers and support
• Execute climate scenario analysis and outputs
• Train finance and sustainability teams on platform

Configure ERP and utility data connectors

• Do you have an inventory of ERP modules and utility meter IDs to connect (for example: billing, fixed assets, meter IDs)? Options: Yes, No — need help cataloguing
• Which authentication and transfer methods can your systems support for integrations (API token, SFTP, database read-only, VPN)? Options: API token, SFTP, Read-only DB, Private network / VPN, Other
• Provide a representative sample file or schema for a utility bill or meter export (timeseries CSV, invoice PDF, XML) or note if only manual upload will be available. Options: Timeseries CSV, Invoice PDF, XML, Manual uploads only, Sample attached later

Ingest and reconcile emissions source data

• List the source systems you expect to feed emissions inputs (ERP GL, facility ETS metering, energy management system, procurement system).
• How many reconciliation mappings do you currently maintain between GL accounts and emissions sources (none, limited to key sites, enterprise-wide)? Options: None, Key sites only, Enterprise-wide mapping exists, Partial mapping — needs expansion
• Describe your current tolerance for data mismatches used in reporting (for example: percent mismatch threshold vs manual adjustments). Options: No tolerance (exact match required), Up to 5% variance, 5-10% variance, Custom threshold

Implement Scope 1 and 2 calculation engine

• Identify which calculation rules you require for Scope 1 and 2 (GHG Protocol operational/financial control, location-based and/or market-based Scope 2). Options: Operational control, Financial control, Location-based Scope 2, Market-based Scope 2, Combination
• Select the emission factor sources you expect to use for fuel combustion and grid electricity (national grid factors, supplier-specific factors, country default tables). Options: National grid factors, Supplier-specific factors, Country default tables, Custom internal factors
• What accuracy threshold for Scope 1 and 2 calculations will define acceptance for this engagement (for example +/- 5% vs manual ledger reconciliations)? Options: +/- 1%, +/- 3%, +/- 5%, Custom threshold (please specify)

Configure Scope 3 category calculations

• Select which Scope 3 categories you need calculated in the initial scope (purchased goods, upstream transport, downstream logistics, business travel, waste). Options: Purchased goods and services, Upstream transportation and distribution, Business travel, Downstream transportation, Waste generated in operations, Other
• Estimate the number of unique suppliers or spend entities that should be included for purchased-goods Scope 3 calculations. Options: Less than 100, 100–500, 500–1,000, More than 1,000, Unknown
• Confirm whether you have spend-to-supplier mappings (GL code to supplier ID or PO line) available to support spend-based Scope 3 estimations. Options: Yes, complete mapping, Partial mapping available, No mapping available

Integrate travel and expense emissions

• List the travel and expense and card feed sources you use (travel booking tool, T&E system, corporate card feeds) that must be integrated.
• Explain how business travel should be classified for emissions (by fare class, itinerary segments, traveler role) for your reporting needs. Options: Fare class required, Itinerary segments required, Aggregate by traveler, Other classification
• Indicate whether you require per-trip level emissions for traveler dashboards or only aggregated monthly/quarterly travel emissions. Options: Per-trip level, Aggregated monthly, Quarterly aggregates only

Onboard supplier emissions data and scorecards

• Choose the supplier data channels you will accept for onboarding (self-reported emissions, standardized questionnaire responses, estimated spend-based values). Options: Self-reported emissions, Standardized questionnaire (e.g., CDP-like), Estimated spend-based, Public datasets, Other
• Approximate how many suppliers you expect to include in the first wave of scorecards. Options: Less than 50, 50–200, 200–500, More than 500, Unknown
• State any contractual or data-usage constraints that will restrict collecting supplier emissions data (for example: NDA, permitted use, retention limits). Options: No constraints, NDA required, Data usage limits apply, Other constraints

Deploy internal controls and audit trail

• Document the retention periods and evidence types required for your disclosure audit trail (for example: 3 years of meter-level raw data, signed reconciliation logs).
• Who are the control owners that will be responsible for monthly reconciliations and approving calculation changes (for example: sustainability lead, controller, plant manager)?
• Outline any approval thresholds that require escalation (for example: >X tCO2e variance, >$Y adjustment to emissions-related accounts).

Generate SEC and IFRS-formatted disclosures

• Name the filing formats you require from the platform (for example: SEC exhibit-style tables, IFRS S1/S2 tables, TCFD-aligned narrative). Options: SEC exhibit tables, IFRS S1/S2 tables, TCFD-style narrative, Other
• Clarify whether you need mappings from internal metrics to 10-K / annual report line items for SEC compatibility. Options: Yes — full mapping required, Partial mapping required, No mapping needed
• When is your next regulatory filing or reporting deadline that will consume these formatted outputs? Options: Within 1 month, 1–3 months, 3–6 months, More than 6 months, Not yet scheduled

Build disclosure-ready regulatory templates

• Which regulatory templates do you want pre-populated from the platform (SEC climate tables, CSRD template sections, CDP questionnaire sections)? Options: SEC climate tables, CSRD templates, CDP questionnaire, Other
• Will you require localized templates or language variants for EU filings or other jurisdictions? Options: Yes — EU localization required, Yes — other jurisdictions, No localization required
• Upload or reference any existing regulatory crosswalks that map your internal KPIs to CSRD/ISSB/SEC line items if available. Options: Will upload, No crosswalk available

Run full disclosure dry run

• Define the dry run schedule and the key milestones we should test (end-to-end data pull, calculations, formatted output, legal review). Options: Single full dry run, Staged dry runs, Rolling dry runs by business unit
• What evidence will validate a successful dry run (for example: signed reconciliation report, matched trial balance, formatted filing preview accepted by reporting owner)? Options: Signed reconciliation report, Matched trial balance, Formatted filing preview accepted, All of the above
• Provide the named approvers who must accept the dry run results (for example: sustainability lead, controller, legal reviewer).

Deliver assurance workpapers and support

• Choose the assurance level you are targeting for the engagement (limited assurance, reasonable assurance, auditor-reviewed as part of financial statements). Options: Limited assurance, Reasonable assurance, Part of financial statement audit, Undecided
• Will your assurance provider require mapped workpapers for each disclosure table and the underlying reconciliations? Options: Yes, No, Unsure — need guidance
• Please provide preferred evidence formats for workpapers (PDF signed workpapers, Excel reconciliations, system audit logs). Options: PDF workpapers, Excel reconciliations, System audit logs, Other

Execute climate scenario analysis and outputs

• Specify the scenario pathways you want modeled (for example: IEA net-zero, IPCC scenarios, or a custom company pathway) and the planning horizon. Options: IEA net-zero, IPCC scenarios, Custom company pathway, Other
• Cite which financial models must consume scenario outputs (capital planning, impairment testing, 10-year forecasts).
• Define the asset-level granularity required for scenario attribution (asset ID, site, or business unit). Options: Asset ID, Site level, Business unit, Portfolio-level only

Train finance and sustainability teams on platform

• Please identify which user groups need training (sustainability analysts, FP&A, controllers, legal reviewers) and your preferred delivery mode (live workshop, recorded sessions, train-the-trainer). Options: Live workshops, Recorded sessions, Train-the-trainer, Blended approach
• Would you like role-based labs that cover data reconciliation, calculation tuning, and formatted filing exports? Options: Yes — labs required, No — standard training enough, Maybe — for selected roles
• Propose your preferred timing for training relative to go-live (for example: 2 weeks before, at go-live, 1 month after). Options: 2 weeks before go-live, At go-live, 1 month after go-live, Other

• desired_state
• current_state
• stakeholders
• gaps
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• desired_state
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• success_criteria
• gaps
• stakeholders
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• gaps
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Subscription Agreement / Order Form
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Data Access & Security Addendum
• Acceptance & Go‑Live Criteria
• Project Governance & Roles Agreement
• Change Order Agreement
• Commercial Terms & Payment Schedule
• Industry Compliance Addendum (conditional)

• Go-live health check (weeks 1-4)
• First measurement review (weeks 4-10)
• 90-day operational review and remediation closure
• Quarterly operational review
• Annual regulatory and assurance review

• Schedule assurance dry run and confirm required evidence package contents.
• Current sample calculation pass rate and open assurance issue count recorded for ongoing monitoring.
• Archive legacy system data or publish the read-only retention plan with retention dates.
• Resolve remaining calculation discrepancies and attach reconciled evidence to the issue tracker.
• Publish the remediation closure log and updated issue dashboard.
• Review quarterly metrics
• Ensure filings remain on track by validating on-time filing readiness rate against Solution Evaluation targets.
• Prioritize and schedule the top enhancement requests that materially affect disclosure accuracy or efficiency.
• Confirm assurance support timeline and evidence deliverables for the upcoming filing cycle.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Implement the top-priority enhancement in the next delivery sprint and publish acceptance criteria.
• Update the data-source integration tracker with completion dates and outstanding actions.
• Annual metrics summary
• Confirm the annual compliance posture by validating open assurance issues and manual reporting hours against Solution Evaluation targets.
• Document required adjustments driven by regulatory changes and schedule their implementation.
• Agree the monitoring and assurance plan for the next 12 months.
• Produce updated control documentation and calculation notes reflecting regulatory-driven changes.
• Plan and schedule the assurance readiness dry run for the next filing cycle.
• Close low-severity assurance issues or move them to a tracked remediation plan with dates.
• Deployment validation checklist completed and distributed.
• Top open issues identified with owners and target resolution dates.
• Timing and pre-work for the first measurement review confirmed.
• Publish the deployment validation checklist and findings to the shared workspace.
• Open remediation tickets for critical blockers with target resolution dates.
• Prepare first-measurement data extracts and reconciliation samples by the agreed date.
• Present first outcome data
• Quantify current position on manual reporting hours and data-source integration percentage relative to Solution Evaluation targets.
• Agree a prioritized remediation plan with owners and completion dates to close the largest gaps.
• Confirm date for the next operational status check and required pre-work deliverables.
• Enable missing data connectors and run a full ingest for the impacted sources.
• Execute targeted data reconciliations for the sample calculations and publish discrepancies.
• Deliver updated measurement pack for the operational gate by the agreed date.
• Restate targets and scope
• Documented closure or scheduled resolution for all remediation items identified during onboarding.
• Confirmation that the incumbent system is decommissioned or retained read-only and its data archived.
• Operational issues and blocker review
• Regulatory change review
• Present outcomes: calculation pass rate and open assurance issues
• Diagnose root causes for gaps
• Deployment and migration validation
• Remediation burn-down and closure plan
• Enhancement requests and prioritization
• Control and calculation adjustments
• Agree corrective actions and owners
• User access and onboarding verification
• Incumbent system wind-down and data archiving
• Assurance support planning for the next filing
• Next-year monitoring and assurance plan
• Confirm timeline to operational gate
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Blocker triage and immediate remediation plan
• Finalize ongoing cadence and handover
• Agree cadence for first measurement