The constraint is the product. A dossier assembled by covert means cannot be shown to the regulator who asked for it, because explaining how you got it creates a second problem. See can I legally audit my Chinese supplier? for where the line sits.
What the file contains
Identity and structure
Registered entity, Unified Social Credit Code, ownership as published, related entities, former names and any restructuring — each with the source and retrieval date.
Dated site evidence
Consented site visit or live walkthrough, photographed and filmed, tied to the address on the licence rather than to an address on a brochure.
Certificates, verified
Each certificate checked against the issuing body’s own record — not accepted as a PDF. Expired and unverifiable certificates are listed as such.
Sub-tier disclosure
Named upstream suppliers and material origins to the extent the supplier will disclose them, with what they declined recorded explicitly.
Every finding carries a grade
This is what separates a due-diligence file from a marketing document. Nothing in the file is asserted more strongly than the evidence supports.
| Grade | Means |
|---|---|
| Verified | Confirmed against a primary source we name — the registry, the issuing body, or our own dated observation on site |
| Consistent | Supported by two or more independent indicators, but not directly confirmed |
| Unverifiable | Could not be established by lawful means — recorded, with the reason, rather than omitted |
Who buys this
- Brands and manufacturers whose retail customers have begun demanding supply-chain evidence.
- Importers facing forced-labour due-diligence obligations and unable to get past a supplier questionnaire.
- Buyers who have moved assembly to a third country and now need to evidence what their Chinese sub-tier actually does.
- Anyone who has been asked a hard question about a supplier and realised that “we have used them for years” is not an answer.
