The most common mistake
The most common mistake when submitting data for a digital product passport of aluminium is that companies submit general product information instead of data that can be traced back to the specific batch or lot. A technical data sheet, a general alloy specification or marketing text about the product range may seem complete at first glance, but it lacks precisely what gives a passport its value: the link between the physical product that leaves the door and the data recorded about it.
This problem is often only noticed when it is too late, for example when a customer or regulatory authority asks about the origin of a specific delivery and the submitted data go no further than "this type of profile contains on average X percent recycled aluminium". The regulation calls for information that is demonstrably linked to the product, not a general description of the product range.
Why this mistake happens so often
The cause is usually not due to unwillingness but to habit. Quality certificates, material declarations and composition data have been maintained at product level in many companies for years, because that was always sufficient for their own administration and for customer enquiries. A product passport requires an extra step: the same information, but linked to the batch, the melt or the specific delivery that the passport concerns.
A second cause is that the submission often happens at the last moment, under time pressure, by someone who does not work daily with the source documents. Then the temptation is great to take the nearest document, even if it is a general data sheet instead of a batch certificate.
What goes wrong if the link is missing
If data cannot be traced back to the specific delivery, a passport is created that looks complete but does not match the product to which the QR code is attached upon closer inspection. This not only affects the accuracy of the passport itself; it can also raise questions with customers further down the chain, who use the passport precisely to be able to demonstrate something to their own customers.
The regulation deliberately distinguishes between general product information and data linked to a specific item or specific batch. Which of the two is required depends on the type of data and the delegated act that applies to it; for aluminium this has not yet been published. Companies that get used to maintaining batch-level information now are better positioned when the requirements become concrete.
How to avoid this mistake in practice
The core of the solution is simple to formulate, even if implementation requires discipline: record where each piece of data comes from and at which level it applies. A foundry certificate belongs to a specific melt, an analysis of recycled content belongs to a specific delivery, and a general data sheet belongs to a product group. As long as these levels are not confused, the passport remains traceable.
It helps to note for each piece of data who the source is and when it was recorded, rather than waiting until the passport is being compiled to look for "something that roughly fits". This not only prevents this mistake, it also saves time in a later update, for example when a supplier changes or a certificate is renewed. Those who want to see what this looks like in practice will find an explanation on how the data for a passport are built up.
The conversation with your software supplier
This error also appears in how companies talk to their software supplier about the Digital Product Passport. Don't just ask whether a system "can generate a passport", but also how it distinguishes between data at product level and data at batch level, and how traceability is recorded if a delivery is recalled or inspected. A supplier unfamiliar with that distinction will likely deliver the same problem in digital form.
To see which data are relevant for your situation and at what level they are usually requested, the free quick-scan of five questions can provide initial guidance. A broader overview of the concepts and obligations associated with the passport can be found in the knowledge base by topic, and frequently asked questions about the submission itself are bundled on the page with answers to practical questions.
For your own situation, and for the question of which data are precisely required, it remains advisable to consult the official text or involve a legal expert; this article describes a pattern that often occurs, not a judgment on an individual case.
In brief
Anyone already collecting data at batch level rather than at product level is building a passport that will withstand a later inspection. If you are uncertain where to start for your own company, take the free quick-scan or browse through the topics in the knowledge base; both are accessible without obligation.