01 · Inventory
Where each record starts
We document the systems, paper forms and spreadsheets used at intake, on the bridge and in the office.
Permitted and licensed waste receiving sites
Digital waste tracking readiness, before the deadline becomes the project
We compare the records you hold now with the information your reporting route needs, identify the gaps in writing, and scope the connection to a named compatible route. No vague compliance promise and no unapproved Inferred endpoint.
Fixed scopeQuoted before work starts
Human controlDecisions stay with your team
Honest boundaryKeep existing systems where they work
A field map you can act on, not a sales survey
Most sites already hold much of the information somewhere: in weighbridge software, transfer notes, permit records, spreadsheets and customer files. The work is establishing which record owns each item, what is absent, and how a complete record will reach the service.
02 · Map
What is present and missing
Each required reporting item is mapped to its source. Duplicates, blank fields and rules that live only in memory are marked plainly.
03 · Route
How records will be submitted
The intended government or compatible-software route is named, including what can be connected and what will still need human review.
04 · Exceptions
What happens when data is uncertain
Missing or ambiguous information waits for a person. The system does not invent a waste code, weight or party to complete a record.
05 · Reconcile
Proof of what went and what did not
Any quoted integration includes an agreed reconciliation output so failed or incomplete records stay visible.
Deliverable
A written gap register
You keep the field map, gaps, recommended route, scope and exclusions whether or not you ask Inferred to build anything.
What the review looks like in practice
This is an illustrative example of the review method, not a claim about any site's regulatory position.
One inbound load, followed from gate to report
- At the gate
- The vehicle, carrier and arrival record are checked against what is captured now.
- On the bridge
- The ticket and weight record are traced to the system or paper source that owns them.
- In the office
- Waste description, parties and supporting records are matched to their sources rather than retyped from memory.
- At submission
- The chosen route, review point, returned status and reconciliation record are written down.
- The output
- A field-by-field map showing present, missing, duplicated and manually decided information.
The compatible-software point, stated clearly
For API reporting, GOV.UK says software must integrate with the report-receipt-of-waste API and pass production approval tests. Inferred and Cortex are not presented here as a Defra-confirmed compatible software provider.
If you already have compatible software
Connect the records you already produce
Where the provider exposes a supported import or integration route, we can quote the bridge between your existing records and that named route.
If you have not chosen a route
Finish the data map before buying
The readiness review gives you the questions and field requirements needed to assess a provider without pretending to select your regulatory solution for you.
Written into every scope: the named submission route, who is responsible for the reporting account, what Inferred connects, what requires human confirmation, and what happens to rejected records. We do not claim that buying a build makes a site compliant.
Primary sources: Digital waste tracking service and Report receipt of waste: choose a software provider, GOV.UK.
Scope, price and exclusions
Readiness review
Fixed price from £1,495
- Record-source inventory
- Field-by-field map and gap register
- Recommended next steps and written exclusions
- A document you keep
Not included
Things the review cannot decide for you
- Legal advice about your permit or duties
- Waste classification decisions
- Responsibility for completeness or accuracy
- API submission during the review
When we would tell you not to buy: if your existing software already captures the required information and has a working compatible reporting route, the review should confirm that and stop. A second bridge would add cost without fixing anything.
Questions receiving sites ask
Is this only for large waste operators?
No. The review is deliberately bounded for an individual permitted or licensed receiving site. Multi-site scope is quoted only after the systems and common fields are understood.
Do we have to replace our weighbridge software?
Usually not. The first question is whether it already stores the right information and exposes it reliably. Connection normally beats replacement.
Can you submit records for us?
The review does not. Any later integration uses the named route and responsibilities agreed in writing; the reporting obligation and record accuracy remain with the operator.
What if our volumes are low?
If the available reporting route is comfortable to use manually and integration would not save enough time, we will say so before quoting a build.
Bring one real movement record
The first call is fifteen minutes and free. We will tell you whether a field-mapping review is useful, premature or unnecessary.
If the honest answer is that the process needs the system rebuilt rather than one step automated, that is a bespoke waste tracking and compliance system.