How is consumption calculated?
Meridia Verify primarily processes geospatial supply chain data. For that reason, usage and quota consumption are measured on a hectare basis, which is the most appropriate and widely used unit for geospatial analysis.
Hectares also serve as a practical proxy for associated sourcing volumes and, by extension, compliance and verification effort. This allows quota allocation and budgeting to scale in line with the real analytical workload performed by the platform.
Logic Behind Quota Consumption Calculation
Quota consumption is calculated based on the spatial footprint of the data processed:
Polygons are always measured using their calculated geometric area within the platform, regardless of any reported or declared size. This ensures consistent, objective measurement across all datasets.
Geopoints rely on a reported plot size where available. If no size is provided, Meridia Verify applies predefined default hectare values to ensure the data can still be processed. Default geopoint size assumptions per commodity:
Commodity | Value | Definition |
Coffee | 2 Ha |
|
Palm Oil | 2 Ha |
|
Cocoa | 2 Ha |
|
Soy | 200 Ha |
|
Other | 4 Ha |
|
Quota Consumption Rules for Data Reprocessing
To avoid penalising customers for operational workflows that require resubmission or correction of data, Meridia Verify tracks consumption based on unique spatial data only.
Unique spatial data is defined by a combination of the farm plot ID and its geometry. The system tracks changes to both. Any modification to either the plot ID or the geometry causes the plot to be treated as a new, unique feature and counted toward system usage.
However, when the same plot is processed against multiple test profiles (for example, EUDR and DCF test profiles), it is counted again for quota usage.
Each test profile represents a distinct analytical configuration and produces results for a specific regulatory or business purpose. As such, each profile run delivers separate value and incurs separate processing effort.
Usage calculation cases:
Case 01:
A change to the farm plot ID, the geometry, or both will be considered a new, unique feature.
Example 1.1:
In this example, a single farm polygon is split into two farm plots. Although one plot retains the original farm plot ID 'P-12334', its geometry has changed, and a second plot with a new geometry and a new ID 'P-12335' has been created. Consequently, both plots are recognised as new unique features and are counted separately by the system.
Case 02:
Changes to the farm plot ID with unchanged geometry.
Example 2.1:
The image above illustrates a case where the farm plot ID has changed from
'P-12334' --> 'ABC-76896' while the geometry remains unchanged. The system treats the farm plot ID as a unique identifier; this change results in the plot being counted as a new unique feature.
Example 2.2:
The above is another case relating to geopoint data, where the geometry coordinates remain unchanged but the farm plot ID has been entered differently. In this situation, the system interprets the record as new data and processes it accordingly.
⚠️ Note:
It is essential to provide accurate and consistent attribute information when uploading datasets to the Verify portal and to maintain consistency in farm plot IDs throughout the data management and verification process.
💡Tip
This is a common issue that many users overlook. To avoid this, it is recommended that, before uploading data to the Verify portal, a quick check of the dataset is carried out to ensure that the correct fields are being entered.
Case 03:
Changes to the geometry with no change to the farm plot ID.
Example 3.1:
The farm plot IDs remain unchanged between the first and second upload. However, the geometry of the polygon with farm plot ID P-12335 has been corrected to resolve an overlap and to reflect the accurate farm boundaries. As a result, this plot will be counted and reprocessed as new geometry.
Example 3.2:
We have observed cases where an empty Z coordinate is provided for a polygon in the initial upload and corrected in a second upload for the same polygon using the same ID. In such instances, the system interprets this as a change in geometry and processes the polygon as new.
Example 3.3:
Any change to the geometry, even a single coordinate, as shown in the example above, is treated as new geometry, as it requires reprocessing by the system.
Exceptions:
Users should note that changes to any other attribute information associated with the farm geospatial data are not taken into account for usage counting purposes. This applies generally to all non-geometric attributes, including but not limited to the farmer ID, mapping date, and farmer name.
Users should also note that additional costs are not calculated when the same plot is submitted across different test profile versions, provided the farm geometry and farm plot ID remain unchanged.
Summary
The system tracks changes to both farm plot IDs and geometries. Any modification to either the farm plot ID or the geometry results in the plot being treated as a new, unique feature and counted towards system usage.
It is worth noting that the system operates on a binary (1/0) basis. As a result, even a change to a single decimal place or coordinate value will cause the system to automatically interpret the record as new data and reprocess it accordingly.
The Verify portal uses the farm plot ID as the primary unique identifier for usage calculation. Users are therefore expected to consider this general principle when updating or managing attribute data within submitted datasets.
The platform intentionally disregards optional or descriptive attributes such as farmer ID, farmer name, aggregator ID, and mapping date. Reprocessing the same underlying plot with only these attributes changed will therefore not consume additional quota.