Cross-reference documents against the passport
Attribute statements from test reports, compare them like-for-like, and resolve conflicts with a reason.
DPP Shield editorial team · Updated:
Attribute statements from test reports, compare them like-for-like, and resolve conflicts with a reason.
What it looks for
Cross-referencing reads the documents attached to a passport and attributes statements to passport fields, then compares those statements with the issuer's own declaration and with each other. The point is to catch the case where a report says one number and the passport says another.
How a statement is attributed
Three ways, in order of trust: deterministic rules, the configured model against the category's field list, and a human quoting a document directly. A human-added statement requires the document, the field path, the value and the quote, and the quote has a minimum length.
Only one statement is kept per source and field, and a human statement outranks a model statement, which outranks a heuristic one.
Comparison is value-kind aware
Numbers are converted inside a dimension, so 1.2 kg and 1200 g agree. Percentages are compared in percentage points, dates exactly, codes after normalising case and punctuation.
A bound against an exact value is decided - a maximum of 4 is satisfied by 3.5 and contradicted by 5. A bound against a bound, two different dimensions, or a not-declared marker against a number are reported as not comparable rather than as agreement. Fields with no context, such as a bare percentage, are out of scope with the reason stated, so the platform does not manufacture conflicts.
Resolving a conflict
A disagreement is stored with its quotes and a reviewer hint. The hint is a hint, not a decision - it points at the source that looks more credible and leaves the call to you.
You resolve or dismiss it with a reason. A critical conflict, on a safety or content-related field, cannot be dismissed and requires the accepted value. Conflicts survive rescans, reopen only when a new statement appears, and are marked cleared - never deleted - once the sources agree.
The consistency report
Issuing a consistency report stores an immutable artifact recording the comparison outcomes and how many documents could not be read. That last number is the honest one: a passport where nothing could be compared is reported as unassessed, not as consistent.
Screen-by-screen reference
These pages were checked in the organization console on 8 October 2026 using an isolated sample organization. Controls can differ by role, plan, record state and configured providers. Each page below explains its purpose, a practical workflow, the visible controls and what to verify afterward.
Cross-reference evidence (/crosscheck)
Cross-reference compares statements extracted from files with values declared in a chosen passport version.
Use the portfolio summary to decide which passport has an open conflict, then inspect the original excerpt beside the declared value and unit. Resolve a mismatch by correcting the declaration or recording a justified human decision. An unreadable document cannot be treated as corroborating evidence merely because a file was uploaded.
Unreadable evidence is counted separately and cannot silently support a value.
Controls and options
- Read Portfolio for open conflicts and unreadable documents.
- Most conflicting fields highlights data paths that repeatedly disagree.
- Select a passport and Show the state to inspect excerpts, units and resolution options.
- Resolve each conflict against the original file; record the reason for a human decision.