Satellite screening should help a team focus its review, not silently reject a supplier or convert uncertainty into a positive result. A useful alert workflow identifies the affected plot and indicator, preserves the original response, requests specific supporting evidence, and records what the responsible reviewer decided for that case version.
A practical preparation workflow
- 1
Open the affected plot, source indicator, service version, and evidence hash.
- 2
Request the smallest specific supplier, production-date, land-use, or boundary evidence needed.
- 3
Review the new evidence, rerun changed inputs as a new version, and record the decision.
Classify the problem before requesting more files
First distinguish a geometry problem, a source indicator, conflicting datasets, missing coverage, and a service failure. Each category needs a different next step; a generic request for every supplier document creates delay without resolving the signal.
Ask a narrow, evidence-based question
Show the supplier or reviewer the plot, relevant indicator, date context, and exact missing explanation. Request only the boundary correction, production evidence, land-use record, or independent source needed to review that question.
- Boundary question: confirm or correct the submitted production polygon.
- Date question: provide dated evidence tied to the relevant production period.
- Land-use question: provide source material that explains the observed class or change.
Rerun without rewriting history
If the geometry or supporting facts change, keep the earlier response, mark it superseded or stale, and create a new execution. Record who reviewed both versions and why the final decision changed or remained the same.
What to check
- Affected plot, indicator, source, and response version
- Alert reason and whether the boundary itself is disputed
- Specific additional evidence and accountable owner
- New execution, reviewer rationale, and downstream impact
A flagged result is a review signal, not proof of non-compliance; an unclear or unavailable result must not be relabeled as a successful screening.
Questions teams ask
Should a flagged result automatically block a supplier?
No. It should open a defined review question. The responsible business decides the operational consequence after reviewing relevant evidence.
What if WHISP is unavailable?
Record the unavailable dependency and decide whether to retry, use an approved alternative source, or keep the case blocked. Never present an unavailable check as clear.
Who records the final decision?
The authorized person in the responsible business who reviews EUDR evidence for that case. Filovara records the person, evidence version, decision, and rationale; it does not make the decision for them.