12 data checks before a CPCB API submission

Checks 1–3: identity and mapping

1. Verify the sending facility identity against its authorized integration setup. 2. Match each HCF reference to the intended master record. 3. Confirm that waste categories and other coded values use the receiving system’s current accepted mapping. Keep mapping changes versioned so older submissions can still be explained.

Checks 4–6: event details

4. Validate the identifier against the applicable format and lifecycle rules. 5. Check that event timestamps represent the actual event, with the required time-zone treatment, rather than the later upload time. 6. Verify weight units and numeric precision. Flag impossible or missing values for review; do not insert plausible defaults to get a payload accepted.

Checks 7–9: completeness and duplicates

7. Check required fields using the active specification. 8. Identify repeated local events before sending them again. 9. Confirm any required event sequence or relationship between collection, receipt and later records. A retry policy must account for an uncertain response: a timeout can occur after the receiver has already processed a request.

Checks 10–12: outcome and reconciliation

10. Retain the response or acknowledgement against the local event. 11. Route rejected or uncertain submissions to an owned exception queue. 12. Reconcile locally eligible records with accepted records for the same reporting period. Protect credentials, limit access and avoid placing secrets in ordinary logs. Endpoint names, payload fields and retry rules must come from the current official integration documentation, not examples inferred from another vendor.

Worked example: reconcile submission outcomes

Fictional training scenario. Your team has 100 distinct local events eligible for submission in a defined period. The following labels describe an internal review method. They are not official CPCB response values, field names or a proposed API specification.

100 = 10 + 82 + 5 + 3. Classify each event once in this snapshot. Eighty-two have confirmed acceptance and eighteen need follow-up. Counting 90 transmission attempts as 90 acceptances would conceal five rejections and three uncertain outcomes. Repeated attempts must not increase the number of distinct local events.

Investigate an uncertain outcome first

For one of the three uncertain events, suppose the response was lost after the receiver processed it. If the official interface or authorized support process establishes acceptance, link that evidence and move the event from uncertain to accepted. The revised snapshot becomes 83 accepted, 5 rejected, 2 uncertain and 10 pending: still 100 events.

If acceptance cannot be established, retain the uncertain state and follow the current documented recovery procedure. Do not infer rejection from a timeout or assume that an ordinary HTTP success code proves business acceptance. The receiving system’s current specification determines which evidence is sufficient.

Retain the investigation trail

Record the local event reference, attempt time, outcome evidence reference, owner and next action. Keep credentials and unnecessary payload details out of the review register. A corrected event may require a new attempt, but its relationship to the original record must remain understandable.

For broader context, see the CPCB API integration guide on cbwtf.in, also published by e-Planet. Use the official onboarding documentation for technical implementation.