Defending two years of files in a regulator audit
An obligated party asked by its supervisory body to justify decisions taken on files submitted up to two years earlier, under rules that had changed twice since.
Who they are.
An obligated party with two years of submitted files behind it, asked by its supervisory body to justify the decisions taken on a sample. In the intervening time, the reference framework had been revised twice.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Justifying an old decision meant finding the person who made it, and hoping they remembered which version of the rules applied. Nothing in the archive proved what a 2024 file had actually been checked against.
What success looked like.
- Replay any decision against the rules that applied on its own date
- Show the source excerpt behind every verdict, not a summary of it
- Produce an audit pack without weeks of manual assembly
What Ceertia does here.
Rule versioning is not an add-on here: every verdict was already stored with the rule version, the source excerpt, the page and zone, and a timestamp. The audit consisted of replaying files, not reconstructing them, and exporting the evidence in a machine-readable format.
Every verification verdict stores the rule version, the source excerpt and the timestamp: nothing is asserted without its proof.
How it runs, step by step.
The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.
Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.
Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.
The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.
What changed.
Two years of files were defended against three successive rule versions. The audit pack was an export rather than a project, and the answer to “why did this file pass” became a stored record instead of a recollection.
- Justifying an old decision meant finding the reviewer who made it.
- Nobody could prove which version of the rules a 2024 file had been checked against.
- Preparing an audit pack took weeks of manual assembly.
- Each file replays against the rule version applicable at its own date.
- Every verdict shows its source excerpt, page and zone, and its timestamp.
- The audit pack exports in a machine-readable format on request.
Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.
Other files, same engine.
A European energy supplier meeting a national savings obligation through works files submitted by hundreds of installer partners.
Read the case → Energy efficiencyA delegatee scales its partner network without scaling its back officeA delegatee aggregating savings operations on behalf of several obligated parties, growing its installer network faster than it could hire reviewers.
Read the case →See it run on your own files.
Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.