Non-Participating Node & Handling Legacy Data
Overview
This scenario addressed how handling legacy data, data in different formats, and/or incomplete data could impact how supply chain actors issue RBTP digital credentials. This scenario was combined with a version of Scenario 3 – Non-Participating nodes – to explore how a supply chain actor receiving some data that is RBTP-aligned and other data that is not RBTP-aligned can still reconcile both to create their own RBTP digital credentials.
Key Question:
- What does it look like when a portion of the upstream is not sharing data in an RBTP/UNTP-aligned way, and how does handling different data formats impact how credentials are issued?
Scenario Version:
- A smelter receives material from one mine that is sharing RBTP-aligned data and material from another mine that is not sharing RBTP-aligned data
Scenario Value Chain Outline
| Credential Type | Credentials |
|---|---|
| DFR (Facility Record) | Mining Copper Mill - Location BC Copper Smelter/Refiner - Location N |
| DCC (Conformity Credential) | Coppermark - Location BC Coppermark - Location N |
| DPP (Product Passport) | Copper Concentrate - Location BC Copper Cathode - Location N |
| DTE (Traceability Event) | Transformation - Location N |
Lessons Learned/Conclusions from Roundtable
- Validated core items for RBTP proof of concept:
- RBTP can still be used effectively by organizations even while adoption still underway in supply chain; organizations have ability to create their own RBTP-aligned credentials (e.g. Digital Product Passport) while receiving data that is not RBTP-aligned (e.g. input material documentation)
- Differences between RBTP & non-RBTP aligned data is clear on digital credentials
- Significant interest in additional audits, assessments, etc. being digitized as UNTP-aligned Digital Conformity Credentials (ISO certifications, recycled content certifications, etc.)