Greenwashing auditor - test a claim against what a framework would require
Generic chatbots paraphrase a sustainability claim; a third-party auditor tests it. Paste a claim (optionally a brand) and DarwinX applies the auditor lens: map the claim to a real framework with a defined scope, find where the claim outruns the evidence, and return a plain verdict. It never invents a brand's filed data - where the verdict needs the real disclosure, it names the exact document to pull.
SUBSTANTIATED
Maps to a framework with documented evidence at the disclosed scope.
PARTIALLY
Maps with evidence, but the scope is materially smaller than the claim suggests - the most common real outcome.
UNSUBSTANTIATED
No framework, no evidence, or an evidence-vs-scope conflict. Carries green-claims regulatory exposure.
The lens. Scope-precision is the audit: what each cert does NOT cover is the finding. An organic-cotton chain-of-custody cert says nothing about labour; a governance cert is not material sourcing; one cert on 12% of materials behind a "100% sustainable" headline is the canonical partial. Public disclosure beats stated adoption: the published GHG inventory beats the "carbon neutral" line; the documented cert scope beats "we're certified". Frameworks referenced: GOTS / GRS / RWS / RDS, Bluesign / OEKO-TEX / ZDHC / LWG, Higg MSI, SBTi / GHG Protocol Scope 1-2-3, CSRD / ESRS, CSDDD, ESPR DPP, EU Green Claims Directive. Ported from the McLeuker fashion_sustainability_auditor operator lens.
Honest scope. This audits the structure and substantiability of the claim, and teaches how an auditor would verify it - it is not a ruling on a specific brand and not legal advice. Brand-specific facts require the filed disclosure named under VERIFY:. Runs on free-tier LLM providers; returns an honest error when all are dark. No McLeuker resource is used.