LCI Review report (against ILCD-compliance, Situation A ("data estimate" or higher quality))

DRAFT template; August 2011

Table 1: General review reporting items

REVIEW REPORTING
General information
Data set name
Data set UUID and version number
Data set locator (e.g. Permanent URI, URL, contact point, database name and version, etc.)
Data set owner
Review commissioner(s)
Reviewer name(s) and affiliations, contact
Review type applied
Date of review (DD/MM/YYYY)
Reviewed against / Compliance system name / ILCD Compliance, Situation A ("data estimate" or higher quality)
Reviewer assessment:
Aspect / Yes / No / Comments
Quality compliance*
Method compliance*
Nomenclature compliance*
Documentation compliance*
Review compliance*
* see also specific/detailed items in table 2
Reproducibility and Transparency
Compliant with ISO 14040 & 14044
Date, location, reviewer signature


Table 2: Specific/detailed review reporting items for LCI data set

All the following items should be explicitly addressed.

Note: The findings/comments on all items are also to be stated - in condensed form - in the "Review details" text field in the data set; some items are additionally to be stated in the separate DQ indicators in the validation section of the data set.

ITEMs / SUB ITEMs / Quality values* / Comments /
Quality (of inventory data)
Technological representativeness of Inputs and Outputs
Geographical Representativeness of Inputs and Outputs
Time representativeness of Inputs and Outputs
Completeness / (Overall)
Completeness of Inputs and Outputs
Completeness of coverage of the relevant problem fields (natural environment, human health, resource use)
Appropriateness of cut-off rules
Appropriateness of system boundaries
Precision of Inputs and Outputs
Methodological appropriateness and consistency / (Overall)
Appropriateness of LCI modelling choices such as e.g. allocation
Consistency of included processes and of LCI methodology
If the data set comprises pre-calculated LCIA results, the correspondence of the Input and Output elementary flows (including their geographical validity) with the applied LCIA method(s)
Appropriateness of background data used
Overall inventory quality (considering all the above)
Method
Application of LCI modelling and method provisions of the compliance system
Application of other method provisions of the compliance system
Nomenclature
Correctness and consistency of applied nomenclature, (Preferred use of ILCD flows etc.; Correct nomenclature of other flows; Exclusion of not permissible waste flows, sum indicator elementary flows etc.)
Correctness and consistency of applied terminology
Review
Appropriateness of applied review type
Correctness of applied review scope
• Items verified
• Criteria for choose of samples
• Motivations for exclusions
• Analyzed data flows
Correctness of applied review methods
Correctness of the review documentation (this form plus full review report incl. requests for improvement)
Documentation
Appropriateness of documentation extent
Appropriateness of documentation form
Plausibility of data
Others

Note*

Quality Values / Definition
Very good / Meets the criterion to a very high degree, having no or no relevant need for improvement. This is to be judged in view of the criterion’s contribution to the data set's potential overall environmental impact and in comparison to an ideal situation.
Good / Meets the criterion to a high degree, having little yet significant need for improvement. This is to be judged in view of the criterion’s contribution to the data set's potential overall environmental impact and in comparison to an ideal situation.
Fair / Meets the criterion to a still sufficient degree, while having the need for improvement. This is to be judged in view of the criterion’s contribution to the data set's potential overall environmental impact and in comparison to an ideal situation.
Poor / Does not meet the criterion to a sufficient degree, having the need for relevant improvement. This is to be judged in view of the criterion’s contribution to the data set's potential overall environmental impact and in comparison to an ideal situation.
Very poor / Does not at all meet the criterion, having the need for very substantial improvement. This is to be judged in view of the criterion’s contribution to the data set's potential overall environmental impact and in comparison to an ideal situation.
Not evaluated / unknown / This criterion was not reviewed or its quality could not be verified.
Not applicable / This criterion is not applicable to this data set, e.g. its geographical representative can not be evaluated as it is a location-unspecific technology unit process.