Often discussed

more principle questions - confidentiality, plausibility, providing proof

Following options are given:
* inform all actors that treatment partners/'reporters' will not see data from any other treatment partner
* guarantee confidentiality of data e.g. by contract between treatment partner and WEEE system / WF-RepTool access administrator, staff members and/or charged experts or auditors of the WEEE system / WF-RepTool access administrator will have to sign a confidentiality agreement
* in case (e.g. not for hazardous wastes) agree that a code for the name of the acceptor will be used and only any independent auditor will check the name of the acceptor (cross check e.g. with delivery documents, check e.g. technology given)
Yes, in general all data should be proofed by e.g. delivery documents, information about the next step treatment including yield of fractions, their composition and their use (technology); this proof of data may be limited e.g. for pure metal fractions, fractions having reached the end-of-waste criteria.
Of course it is possible that one company is running different plants and different kinds of technologies but:
* take care & check if they are not only 'collectors'/'traders' forwarding the fractions to other companies (ask for physical operators) or
* ask for/foresee/do a multiple registration of the 'mega-company' per plant (per site and technology)
(see also Do I have to provide the names of all acceptors?)