Documentation that holds up
Regulatory compliance
Compliance work is mostly not about knowing the rules. It is about knowing which of your documents stopped being true when the rules changed — and finding that out before an inspector does.
The problem with a compliant file
A documentation set is compliant on the day it is written and starts decaying immediately. CLP is amended by successive ATPs; harmonised classifications are added, tightened and occasionally removed. Nothing in your filing cabinet announces that it has been overtaken. The sheet looks the same as it did last year.
That is why we treat compliance as a measurement problem rather than an advisory one. The useful question is not “are we compliant” — everybody answers yes — but “which specific documents in this set contradict the register as it stands today, and by how much”.
What we do
Portfolio review
Your existing sheets read against the current register, substance by substance. The output is a list of divergences with the entry that overtook each one — not a percentage score.
Classification verification
For each substance: does a harmonised entry exist, does your classification match it, and where it does not, is the divergence under- or over-classification. Both directions carry risk; only one of them is usually noticed.
Gap register
Substances in your range with no safety data sheet at all, and substances whose public data is too thin to support one honestly. The second group is the one that surprises people.
Remediation plan
Ordered by exposure, not alphabetically: what to fix first, what can wait, and what needs a decision from you because no amount of documentation resolves it.
Under-classification and over-classification
Under-classification is the obvious risk: a hazard the document does not declare. It carries liability and it is what enforcement looks for.
Over-classification is the quiet one. Declaring a hazard the register does not support restricts your product unnecessarily, can exclude it from tenders and transport modes, and undermines the credibility of every other statement on the sheet. We report both, because a review that only looks for missing hazards will call an over-classified portfolio clean.
What you receive
- A finding per substance, with the CAS number, the current register entry, your current statement, and the difference between them in plain words.
- Evidence attached to each finding — the entry we compared against, so you can verify any single line without re-running the whole review.
- An explicit list of what we could not determine, including substances where the public record itself is contradictory.
- No aggregate score. A single number hides exactly the detail you are paying for; a portfolio can improve in two dimensions and worsen in a third while the total stays flat.
Start small
Three sheets tell you what three hundred need
Defects repeat. Send three representative documents — ideally your oldest, your newest, and one for a substance you consider difficult — and the pattern is usually clear. The free audit covers this, at no cost and with no obligation to continue.
What we will not do
We do not certify your company, issue approvals, or represent you before an authority. We are not a notified body and say so plainly, because vagueness about that point is itself a compliance risk for you.
We also will not fill a gap in the public record with a plausible figure to make a document look complete. Where the data does not exist, the honest answer is that it does not exist — and that answer, written down and dated, is worth more in an inspection than a number nobody can source.