4 requirements evaluated: 4 partial.
Partial
Requirement evaluated: The platform must maintain a complete, immutable audit trail covering every data input, emission factor selection, calculation step, methodology change, and user action, sufficient to support third-party limited assurance engagements without supplemental documentation from the buyer. The audit trail must be exportable in a format that an external assurance provider can independently review, directly addressing the buyer's stated problem that the current spreadsheet is not auditable.
For a publicly traded company replacing a non-auditable consultant spreadsheet, Sweep's platform page explicitly commits to 'complete traceability and immutable audit trails for external assurance' and states that 'complete data lineage, immutable audit trails, and governance controls mean you can answer any auditor question with confidence, meeting mandatory assurance requirements under CSRD.' The platform centralizes emissions data from all sources, applies built-in governance controls and validation templates, and positions itself as providing audit-ready data from a single trusted source. …
Limitations: Sweep uses the language of immutable audit trails and complete data lineage in its marketing, but no public documentation found describes the technical depth at the level this buyer requires: whether emission factor vintage is version-locked per calculation, whether field-level before/after values are captured on every …
Partial
Requirement evaluated: The platform must apply emission factors from maintained, versioned libraries and document the methodology selection for each factor, including the factor source, version date, and the rationale for choosing it over alternatives. This must replace the undocumented factor application in the current spreadsheet model and be accessible to third-party assurance providers without requiring a consultant intermediary.
For a publicly traded company replacing an undocumented spreadsheet model, Sweep positions its platform as a direct solution: its carbon accounting page commits to 'full traceability of every emission factor, calculation, and data source' and its sustainability reporting page states that 'every data point, calculation, and emission factor is fully traceable with complete audit trails' with 'version control, approval workflows, and documentation that auditors expect.' Sweep draws on established factor databases including DEFRA, EPA, and ADEME for its calculations, supporting activity-based, spend-based, and hybrid methods across Scope 1, 2, and 3. …
Limitations: Sweep's traceability and version-control claims appear to address data lineage (source activity data through to reported output) rather than the granular factor-level documentation the buyer needs: per-calculation logging of factor source, version date, selection rationale, and a direct auditor portal. …
Partial
Requirement evaluated: The platform must maintain a complete, immutable audit trail covering every data input, emission factor selection, calculation step, methodology change, and user action, sufficient to support third-party limited assurance engagements without supplemental documentation from the buyer. The audit trail must be exportable in a format that an external assurance provider can independently review, directly addressing the buyer's stated problem that the current spreadsheet is not auditable.
For a publicly traded company replacing a non-auditable consultant spreadsheet, Sweep's platform page explicitly commits to 'complete traceability and immutable audit trails for external assurance' and states that 'complete data lineage, immutable audit trails, and governance controls mean you can answer any auditor question with confidence, meeting mandatory assurance requirements under CSRD.' The platform centralizes emissions data from all sources, applies built-in governance controls and validation templates, and positions itself as providing audit-ready data from a single trusted source. …
Limitations: Sweep uses the language of immutable audit trails and complete data lineage in its marketing, but no public documentation found describes the technical depth at the level this buyer requires: whether emission factor vintage is version-locked per calculation, whether field-level before/after values are captured on every …
Partial
Requirement evaluated: The platform must apply emission factors from maintained, versioned libraries and document the methodology selection for each factor, including the factor source, version date, and the rationale for choosing it over alternatives. This must replace the undocumented factor application in the current spreadsheet model and be accessible to third-party assurance providers without requiring a consultant intermediary.
For a publicly traded company replacing an undocumented spreadsheet model, Sweep positions its platform as a direct solution: its carbon accounting page commits to 'full traceability of every emission factor, calculation, and data source' and its sustainability reporting page states that 'every data point, calculation, and emission factor is fully traceable with complete audit trails' with 'version control, approval workflows, and documentation that auditors expect.' Sweep draws on established factor databases including DEFRA, EPA, and ADEME for its calculations, supporting activity-based, spend-based, and hybrid methods across Scope 1, 2, and 3. …
Limitations: Sweep's traceability and version-control claims appear to address data lineage (source activity data through to reported output) rather than the granular factor-level documentation the buyer needs: per-calculation logging of factor source, version date, selection rationale, and a direct auditor portal. …