Inventory boundary decision worksheet
Use this worksheet when the facts behind an inventory boundary need a decision, especially when a familiar site label hides different operations. It gives the reviewer a short evidence dossier: the question, competing treatments, facts each treatment relies on, unresolved contradictions and the decision that may be implemented. The result is a documented boundary judgement or a clearly owned unresolved question.
The eight-page editable pack contains instructions, four reusable blank sheets and a three-page fictional completed case. The matching PDF is a static print copy. It does not choose a consolidation approach, interpret an agreement or calculate emissions. Its manually completed decision records can feed a separate entity register after the responsible owner reviews them.
Download the editable inventory boundary decision worksheet (DOCX).
Download the print inventory boundary decision worksheet (PDF).
Define the decision before collecting more evidence
Name the reporting organisation, inventory purpose, period and selected method reference at the top of the dossier. Identify the person authorised to interpret that method. If the approach is undecided, record that as the first question. A worksheet assembled around incompatible assumptions will not become sound simply because every response field is filled.
Give the object under review a stable identifier and say what it represents: a legal entity, operation, asset or physical location. Then check whether that object should be separated into smaller decision units. A site name can describe a place containing several activities. A legal entity may operate at several places. Preserve the relationships rather than treating every label as an interchangeable boundary unit.
EPA distinguishes the entities and assets within an organisational boundary from the emissions sources within operational boundaries. It also calls for consistent application of the chosen consolidation approach. These distinctions frame the worksheet; no source decision table is reproduced.
Keep the decision question narrow enough to answer. For example, ask whether the named testing operation is covered by the selected approach for the stated period. Avoid asking whether an entire campus is green, compliant or suitable for a claim. Those questions do not specify the boundary judgement or the evidence required.
Give each record a limited job
For every source, record its identifier, version, precise location and the fact it supports. Add what it does not establish. An asset list may establish a location or recorded ownership. An operating note may establish who performs a particular task. Neither should be promoted into an all-purpose answer to questions it never addressed.
Distinguish missing evidence from contradictory evidence. If a document is unavailable, identify its custodian and the authorised route for review. If two records disagree, preserve both, date them and ask whether they describe different objects, periods or responsibilities. Deleting the inconvenient record does not resolve the disagreement. Do not copy confidential contracts into a freely circulating worksheet.
The alternatives sheet deliberately keeps plausible treatments beside their support and weaknesses. This helps a reviewer see whether the preparer has simply preferred the smallest boundary or copied last year’s answer. Reject an option because its reasoning is unsupported, or retain it as unresolved where essential facts remain missing. The worksheet supplies no scoring system to replace judgement.
Follow two operations at one fictional campus
All names, records and decisions in the pack are invented. Sable Instruments maintains campus CP1, which contains assembly operation U1 and testing operation U2. Its inherited inventory row marks the entire campus included. That row points only to a property register naming CP1. It contains no operation-level analysis or retained technical approval.
The fictional policy reference P1 records an already selected operational-control approach. A responsible method owner has separately confirmed U1’s inclusion at 100 percent for the stated year in decision D1. That is a supplied case decision, not a control conclusion inferred from the campus address, the electricity bill or ownership alone. The worksheet preserves D1 and its stated scope.
The evidence for U2 is incomplete. A supplier working note says the supplier schedules testing. The facilities note describes shared premises services. Neither establishes the full authority relevant to the chosen method. The indexed operating agreement has not been made available for review. The questionnaire therefore asks the authorised facts owner and method owner to settle the missing point.
Three candidate treatments are recorded. Blanket inclusion of CP1 is unsupported by the inherited row. Automatic exclusion of U2 merely because a supplier performs tests is also unsupported. The selected disposition preserves the separately confirmed U1 decision and leaves U2 unresolved. The example does not decide that every outsourced activity is outside an inventory boundary.
The shared electricity account creates another question, but it cannot settle the boundary. The supplied schedule covers both U1 and U2 and contains no supported split. Recording U1 as included does not establish which part of the account can be assigned to it. The completed worksheet opens a separate measurement or allocation task while retaining the unresolved U2 boundary question.
Separate the recorded decision from its implementation
For a settled decision, retain the precise treatment, effective coverage, applied method reference, rationale, reviewer, decision date and approval evidence. For an unresolved decision, retain the question and the fact needed to answer it. Do not write an inclusion percentage simply to make an unresolved row resemble the completed rows. Blank treatment remains distinct from a decided zero.
Identify every downstream record that uses the decision. In the case, the operation register needs two child records linked to CP1, while the earlier campus-only row must be preserved as superseded evidence. The activity-data owner needs the separate shared-account question. The methods-note owner needs the limitation, rather than an unqualified statement that the campus boundary is complete.
An administrative update should not silently approve an accounting judgement. Give the register custodian the decision ID and exact implementation instruction. Ask the custodian to record the resulting register revision and return it for a match check. The reviewer should be able to trace from the decision to the implemented row and back without relying on a current display name.
Keep unresolved operations available to the relevant reporting workstreams. An open organisational decision may affect subsequent source classification and value-chain work. This worksheet does not assign a Scope 3 category or prescribe an exclusion. The method owner must determine the consequences under the applicable requirements and record any separately needed assessment.
Test the dossier before closing the issue
Try the three checks in the worked case. Remove D1: U1’s recorded inclusion has lost its supplied approval basis. Replace the missing agreement with an index entry saying it exists: U2 still lacks reviewed facts. Finally, add a full-year electricity bill: the quantity may be better documented, but it does not answer the authority question or create an allocation.
Reopen a decision when evidence, the selected method, the object being assessed or the relevant arrangements change. Preserve the prior dossier and identify affected outputs before editing them. A current-year operational decision does not by itself settle comparative or base-year treatment. Record that separate question rather than assuming a convenient effective date applies to every reported period.
Use the corporate inventory boundary guide for the broader discussion, the reporting boundary and entity register to maintain implemented decisions, and the acquisition and disposal guide when historical access or changing arrangements need attention. This worksheet supplies the evidence comparison and approval trail behind one difficult decision.
Source checked 15 October 2026: US EPA, Determine Organizational Boundaries, opening distinctions and consistent application of the selected approach.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory worksheet and fictional case. This working aid supplies no legal interpretation, prescribed accounting method, independent assurance or certification. It does not determine the completeness of an inventory. Use authorised technical and other specialist review for the actual facts. No source organisation endorses this resource.
Comments