Module
DG Compliance
Dangerous-goods paperwork that a person has signed off, with the rule version recorded.
What it produces
- SDS, UN number, proper shipping name, hazard class, packing group per material
- Transport-mode and packaging requirements
- Declarations and labels
- Every determination carrying its source, rule version, jurisdiction and effective date
A worked example
CH-2210 — UN 1263, Class 3, PG II
flash point 21°C · not a marine pollutant
source: IMDG Amendment 42-24, effective 01 Jan 2026
packaging 4G/Y, limited quantity threshold 5 L
→ confirmed by a named compliance reviewer on 14 Aug 2026
Illustrative figures. On your tenant the same page shows yours.
Why it is hard
The part that is not a report.
Dangerous-goods segregation is a table, and the table is published. The difficulty is not looking a rule up. It is that the consequence of getting it wrong is not commercial, and software that quietly guesses is worse than no software at all. So the rule version is recorded against every verdict, and the table itself has to be signed off by somebody competent to sign it off before any of this runs. That review is the reason the module is not switched on, and it is not a reason we intend to work around.
Opened by the logistics manager and the supply chain manager — what each of them sees first.
Said before you ask
What is not finished.
COMING_SOON, and unlike the others this is not a data gap — it is safety. The check engine is built and tested — consistency checks on a stated classification, segregation across every pair including subsidiary risks, rule versioning on every verdict, thirty-three tests and twenty-one mutants, three of which attack the safety posture rather than the arithmetic. It stays COMING_SOON for three reasons. The segregation table is an unverified transcription: no competent person has checked it against the published Code, and passing tests prove only that the code applies the table it was given. There is no regulatory data source — a classification must be keyed in from a safety data sheet, because this module deliberately contains no function that infers a UN number from a description and never will. And the human-review workflow is a field on the verdict, not a screen: every verdict already demands a named reviewer, and nothing yet lets one sign.
Where this sits
One of 16 modules, on one engine.
DG Compliance reads the same reconciled data as everything else SIAARU runs — connected read-only to your ERP, scored on the way in, measured in SQL. How that engine works is a page of its own. The other 15 modules, each with the state it is really in and the reason where it is not switched on, are on the module list; what this one costs, and what it costs beside the rest, is on the pricing page.