One fuel claim.
Three connected pillars.

One batch. Two conflicting records.

A ship operator receives a fuel record showing a well-to-wake intensity of 30 gCO₂e/MJ. The supporting production assessment indicates 40. Which value should reach the emissions report, the commercial claim and the relevant supervisor?

This constructed example applies the book's three pillars to one documentation discrepancy. The vessel, batch identifier, factors and review outcome are fictional. No actual fuel pathway, company or verified reduction is represented.

Fuel batch

CBA-DEMO-001

Energy basis

1,000 GJ = 1,000,000 MJ

Illustrative reference intensity

90 gCO₂e/MJ, well-to-wake

Review outcome assumed here

40 gCO₂e/MJ accepted for the exercise

Assume the same energy basis, greenhouse-gas accounting method and lifecycle boundaries for the reference and assessed batch. Treat all 1,000 GJ as used in the comparison. The reference value of 90 is an invented teaching input, not a regulatory benchmark. No voyage coverage, annual compliance balance, fuel eligibility rule or market price is modelled.

Pillar I: reconcile the evidence

The operator links the batch identifier to the delivery record, supplier identity, production pathway, calculation method and document versions. In the hypothetical review, the reviewer establishes that the value of 30 came from an earlier assessment; the applicable assessment supports 40.

The proposed digital fuel passport would carry the corrected value and its evidence references. The earlier record remains visible as superseded. This creates a traceable correction; issuing a passport alone does not validate the fuel claim.

For this simplified example, well-to-wake equals well-to-tank plus tank-to-wake: 40 = 20 + 20. The final two rows are components of the corrected total, not additional emissions to add to it. CO₂e denotes carbon dioxide equivalent.

Difference implied by the original claim

60 tCO₂e

Difference after the correction

50 tCO₂e

The discrepancy overstated the difference by 10 tCO₂e. The corrected comparison is 55.6% below the illustrative reference, calculated as (90 − 40) ÷ 90. This is a conditional physical comparison within the example; it is not an issued carbon credit or a regulatory compliance result.

Pillar II: map each obligation separately

Once the evidence is reconciled, the commercial team can identify how each applicable system treats it. A system using onboard emissions and one using lifecycle intensity need different inputs, even when they start from the same fuel record.

• Record the boundary: tank-to-wake or well-to-wake, the covered greenhouse gases, period and relevant activity.
• Record the mechanism: an emissions allowance obligation, an intensity standard and a contractual fuel premium are different quantities and commitments.
• Record recognition conditions: the required evidence, responsible authority and any rule permitting crediting or settlement.

The book's carbon translation, equivalence and settlement concepts would address these interfaces through agreed arrangements. In this example, no such arrangement is assumed. The 50 tCO₂e comparison is therefore not converted into allowances, FuelEU surplus or a financial saving.

Pillar III: assign the discrepancy and close it

A common record becomes useful when responsibility follows the information. The proposed supervisory arrangements would identify who needs the correction and who has authority to act on it.

1. Supplier: explain and correct. Identify the superseded assessment, issue the corrected record and retain the link to the original.
2. Operator: control reliance. Flag the disputed value, identify affected reports and commercial statements, and prevent continued use of the outdated claim.
3. Verifier: review the evidence. Record the accepted method, scope and outcome of the review. Acceptance for one purpose does not automatically establish eligibility for another regime.
4. Competent authority: receive an escalation when required. Refer material, unresolved or suspected fraudulent discrepancies through the applicable reporting route. Share information only with authorised recipients and within each body's mandate.

Closure requires a linked evidence trail: corrected document, review outcome, affected-report amendments, notifications where applicable and a recorded closure decision. In this exercise the discrepancy is an outdated assessment; it is not evidence of deliberate fraud.

The practical result

The three pillars connect one correction across the system. Measurement establishes what the figures mean. Pricing analysis identifies where the evidence can lawfully be used. Supervision assigns the correction and its follow-through.

For a pilot, measure the time taken to resolve the discrepancy, the number of records that required correction, whether downstream users received the revision and whether the same error recurred. These are observable tests of coordination; no cost saving or emissions reduction is claimed merely because a platform was introduced.