An obligated supplier stops losing files to incomplete paperwork
A European energy supplier meeting a national savings obligation through works files submitted by hundreds of installer partners.
Who they are.
A European energy supplier subject to a national savings obligation. It does not carry out the works itself: several hundred independent installer partners do, and each one submits a works file to claim its share. The supplier answers to the certifying body for every file it passes on.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
The obligation is met by volume, and volume arrives as paperwork. Every file had to be checked for the same six things before it could be submitted — and when the certifying body rejected one, the rejection came back weeks later, past the deadline to fix it.
What success looked like.
- Catch an incomplete file on the day it arrives, not weeks later
- Tell the installer exactly what is missing, in a way they can act on
- Be able to defend any decision if the certifying body queries it
What Ceertia does here.
Five standardised use cases, one per operation type. Each declares the documents a complete works file must contain and the questions Ceertia must answer about them. Installers submit into their own workspace, so a rejection comes with the exact missing page and a request they can fulfil themselves.
The installer’s qualification must be valid on the commitment date — not on the day the file was submitted.
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.
The checking work moved from the back office to the moment of arrival. Reject rates became visible per partner and per document type, which turned an unexplained loss rate into a manageable list of installers to coach.
- Back-office staff opened every file to check the same six things by hand.
- Incomplete files came back from the certifying body weeks later, past the deadline.
- Nobody could say which installer partner produced the most rejects.
- Files are checked on arrival; the installer is told what is missing the same day.
- Every verdict carries the rule version and the source zone, so a rejection can be contested.
- Reject rates are visible per partner, per document type, per month.
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 delegatee aggregating savings operations on behalf of several obligated parties, growing its installer network faster than it could hire reviewers.
Read the case → Energy efficiencyDefending two years of files in a regulator auditAn 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.
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.