Skip to main content
Variable scores the quality of every input and dataset using a Data Quality Rating (DQR) based on the PACT Methodology v2.0. The aggregate DQR gives you - and anyone consuming your data - a quick read on how confidently a footprint can be reported.
Lower is better. The best possible score is 1, the worst is 3.

How the rating is shown

Each input row and each dataset surfaces a single aggregate DQR (e.g., 1.4, 2.0). The number is colored to make hotspots obvious:
Aggregate DQRColorRead
≤ 1.5GreenGood - suitable for external reporting
1.5 - 2.5DefaultFair - usable, document assumptions
≥ 2.5RedPoor - improve before relying on it
The aggregate is the average of the five dimension scores below. Dimensions left blank don’t count toward the average - but they also reduce confidence, so fill them in where you can.

The five dimensions

Each dimension is rated Good (1), Fair (2), or Poor (3).

Technological representativeness

How well the data represents the actual technology used.
ScoreLabelMeaning
1GoodSame technology
2FairSimilar technology (based on secondary data sources)
3PoorDifferent or unknown technology

Temporal representativeness

How current the data is relative to your reporting period.
ScoreLabelMeaning
1GoodSame reporting year
2FairLess than 5 years old
3PoorMore than 5 years old

Geographical representativeness

How well the data’s location matches yours.
ScoreLabelMeaning
1GoodSame country or country subdivision
2FairSame region or subregion
3PoorGlobal or unknown

Completeness

How much of the underlying activity is actually covered by the data.
ScoreLabelMeaning
1GoodActivity data collected for all relevant sites for the specified period
2FairActivity data collected for less than 50% of sites for the specified period, or more than 50% of sites for a shorter period
3PoorActivity data collected for less than 50% of sites for a shorter time period, or unknown

Reliability

How the data was obtained.
ScoreLabelMeaning
1GoodMeasured activity data
2FairActivity data partly based on assumptions
3PoorFinancial data or non-qualified estimate

Primary vs secondary data

Alongside the DQR, Variable tracks the share of primary (specific, measured) versus secondary (averaged, modeled) data behind a footprint. You’ll see this as two percentages that add to 100%:
  • Primary data % - directly measured at your site or supplier
  • Secondary data % - database, sector, or estimated values
The split is informational - it doesn’t change the DQR - but it gives reviewers a sense of how much of the result rests on direct measurement.

Document your ratings

Alongside the scores, you can record a free-text data quality description - why those ratings were chosen, which production years and background datasets the figures rest on, and any caveats a reviewer should know. EN 15804 expects this narrative “data quality discussion” next to the ratings. Edit it in the data quality panel beside the dimension selectors, on both products and materials. Like the ratings themselves, it’s read-only for externally synced materials. Over the public API and MCP it reads and writes as dataQualityIndicators.description.

Where DQR shows up

SurfaceWhat you see
Input row in a modelAggregate DQR for that input; hover to see all five dimension ratings plus the primary/secondary split
Dataset detailAll five dimension scores, plus primary/secondary split
Material elementThe five dimension scores, editable inline beside the dataset passport
Product footprintAggregate DQR for the product, weighted across its inputs
PACT API exportThe full dqi block (technologicalDQR, temporalDQR, geographicalDQR, completenessDQR, reliabilityDQR)

Improving your rating

Focus where it matters most:
  1. Find your hotspots. Sort inputs by impact contribution.
  2. Check their DQR. A high-impact input with DQR 2.5+ is your highest-leverage fix.
  3. Replace secondary with primary. Supplier-specific datasets (or a verified EPD) typically move all five dimensions toward 1.
  4. Re-run. The aggregate updates as soon as you re-assign the dataset.
Improving DQR on low-contribution inputs is rarely worth the effort. Always prioritize by share of total impact.