Collect
This form is generated from the collection spec, not written beside it. Every field, every constraint and every sentence about what will satisfy it is derived from the same module the engine uses at the door — so the form and the gate cannot disagree, and a question nobody encoded cannot appear here.
Spec spec_cocoa_intake v1, sealed as sha256:1b735e822cdd01e1c92542eef5bc9b653a941f6dd7e4202cd42fcb47740511ec. Nothing on this page writes anything: this install has no network, no storage and no write path, and the boxes below are here so a buyer can see exactly what their supplier will see.
What a supplier is told before they spend anything
The complaint that recurs across every competing portal is the same one: a supplier fills a questionnaire in, submits it, and finds out weeks later which answers earned nothing. One platform documents both halves of that itself — a supplier “can validate the questionnaire without uploading any documents”, and separately “we can only credit answers backed by proper evidence”.
A scored questionnaire structurally cannot fix this, because in a scored questionnaire everything contributes something. Here a field can say, in advance, that a whole class of evidence will not satisfy it at any quantity — and that sentence is worth more to a supplier than the rest of the form.
There is a problem
What this page checks, and what it refuses to
Checked here
format
Pattern, unit, range and permitted values. These are declared in the spec and travel to this page as data off that spec, so the browser enforces the rule itself and there is no second copy to drift.
NOT checked here
provenance
Class, age and channel are decided from who signed, which a page cannot see. A form that guessed would be telling a supplier their evidence is fine before anything verified a signature.
Two doors, and they are not the same door
Conforming means this is the thing that was asked for. Admissible means the gate will rest a decision on it. A record can be the first and not the second, and a supplier who is refused needs to know which door it was. Every row below was produced by running spec.conformOne() — the door itself — while this page was built.
| What arrived | Claim | Door | What it said |
|---|---|---|---|
| the supplier's own survey, filed as a test report | geolocation | refused | BELOW_MIN_CLASS — This kind of source cannot reach the provenance the spec requires here. This claim requires VERIFIED; counterparty organisation — interested party reaches only SELLER-ASSERTED. |
| an accredited laboratory's survey | geolocation | conforms | It is the thing that was asked for. Whether the gate will rest a decision on it is a separate question this door does not answer. |
| the same laboratory report, three years old | geolocation | refused | TOO_OLD_FOR_SPEC — Older than this spec accepts for this claim. This spec accepts 365 days on this claim; this is 1100 days old. |
| a lot code in the wrong format | traceability_lot_code | refused | PATTERN_MISMATCH — The value is not in the form the spec declares. Required form: ^TLC-[A-Z]{2}-[0-9]{4}-[A-Z]$. |
| a perfect plot survey, sent before stage 1 was complete | geolocation | refused | STAGE_NOT_OPEN — An earlier stage of collection is not complete, so this stage is not open. Stage 2 opens once these are conformingly held: commercial_invoice, traceability_lot_code. This record is refused rather than queued: a queue is where non-conforming |
| a moisture reading in the wrong unit | moisture | refused | WRONG_UNIT — The spec declares different units for this claim. It declares pct; this says g/kg. A number without its unit is not a measurement, and two numbers in different units are not comparable however good either one is. |
Why the errors are worded the way they are
- They start with a verb. “Enter the lot code in the format TLC-GH-7731-A”, never “This field is invalid”. The GOV.UK Design System sets its research criterion as users understood what went wrong, knew how to fix the problem, and were able to recover — and “invalid” meets none of the three.
- Every error appears twice — once in the summary at the top of the page, once beside the field — and the two say the same words, so the summary is usable to somebody who cannot see the field.
- Nothing is flagged while you are still typing. Validation happens when you leave a box. The evidence for this is one small unpublished study from 2009 (n=22) and is not the settled science it is usually quoted as — but its direction is corroborated by every practitioner source since, and its participants’ complaint is the point: “it’s frustrating that you don’t get the chance to put anything in before it’s flashing red.”
- There is no red asterisk. That convention has no research base. Each field says instead what happens if it is absent, which is the fact a supplier is actually deciding against.
Corobate · standalone install · one product · built by 27-console/build-console.js from the register, not typed.
This page loads nothing from another origin, makes no request at run time, and touches no browser storage. It works from a file on disk with no server.
Nothing in this console is legal advice.