Client onboarding and access rules
Map who supplies evidence, reviews records, approves and submits for each operator. Your client onboarding process becomes an agreed access matrix, with tests for access across client boundaries.
Run EUDR workflows across clients, with clear boundaries.
Deploy the InvariTech EUDR platform around your client service. We agree client-specific intake, review and submission workflows so each operator's records, approvals and submission authority stay connected to the right client.
Tell us how many client operators you support, which tasks you perform for them and where handoffs break down today.
EUDR submission work we have built
InvariTech built Baldwin Global Consulting’s EUDR submission integration for European publishing supply chains: agreed-input validation, DDS preparation, submission-response records and visible exceptions. The case study describes the delivered work; additional client-management workflows are scoped separately.
See the Baldwin integration case studyWhat we build for you
We agree the work packages, acceptance tests and exclusions in your proposal. Each package has an output your team can review.
Client-specific intake and review
Agree accepted formats, required fields and the people responsible for missing evidence. Build review states that distinguish incomplete information, a pending decision and a record ready for the authorised next step.
Approval and submission controls
Keep technical access separate from authority to act for an operator. Specify who may approve and submit, how changes affect approvals, and how authority is checked before an action.
Exceptions, records and client exit
Associate submission outcomes with the correct client and source record. Assign unresolved cases to an owner. Agree audit exports, access removal and retention when a client relationship ends.
A good fit when…
- You perform recurring EUDR preparation or submission work for several operators.
- Your team needs more than a shared spreadsheet and one queue for every client.
- You can define the responsibilities and authority behind your service.
What to agree before we start
You own the client relationship and the services you agree to provide. Each operator retains its legal responsibilities. We implement the access, review and submission behaviour agreed for your delivery model.
“Aggregator” describes the commercial audience here, not a legal exemption. A client’s technical account does not establish your authority to act for them. We settle those requirements before building the workflow.
From first conversation to handover
Map your service model
Walk through a client engagement: what the client supplies, what your staff do, who approves and who submits. Identify differences between clients.
Prove the client boundaries
Agree the scope and test with representative fictional clients. Check access restrictions, changed records, approval authority and misrouted work, not only successful submissions.
Prepare your team to operate it
Review the results and handover procedures. Agree who handles onboarding, access changes, unresolved submissions and support before production use.
How we price the work
The scope depends on client roles, input formats, workflow variations, approval rules and required connections. Client count alone is not enough to quote a build.
We separate implementation, migration and ongoing operating costs in the proposal. Start with your current service model and an initial set of workflows. The EUDR implementation engagement covers the wider delivery and handover approach.
Before you get in touch
Is this a software subscription we can start using today?
We offer a licensed white-label EUDR platform with assisted deployment, rather than instant self-service signup. We check your client structure against the existing core and scope configuration or additional engineering. The Baldwin case study demonstrates the submission integration; it is not proof that every client-management requirement is already implemented.
Can your team provide the legal mandate for our clients?
The appropriate parties must establish the authority to act and its scope. Our engineering work records and enforces the agreed requirements; it does not create legal authority or replace legal advice.
How will we handle failed or uncertain submissions?
We scope ownership, visible status and reconciliation procedures. A reviewer needs to distinguish missing client evidence from a technical rejection or an uncertain response. The submission-error guide explains why these need different next steps.
Build around the way you serve your clients.
Tell us how many client operators you support, which tasks you perform for them and where handoffs break down today. We’ll use that to discuss fit and the information needed for a scoped proposal.
Start with a short description. Please don’t send credentials or confidential records through the contact form.