tLCAF / zLCAF — Approved Claims & Forbidden Claims

Internal guardrails for agency briefs, investor materials, partner discussions, and minisite copy. The objective is MRV-aware positioning without implying guaranteed regulatory outcomes, managed compliance services, or SAF/crediting claims.

Back to Guardrails Memo
One-Page Sheet
Last updated: 04 Feb 2026

Non-negotiables (always true)

  • Identity tLCAF / zLCAF are positioned as drop-in Jet A-1 products; do not blur into SAF or crediting unless explicitly scoped and evidenced.
  • Deliverable We supply fuel + QA + traceability evidence. We do not “deliver compliance.”
  • Control MRV interpretation is airline-controlled and verifier-led, subject to the operator’s plan and verification procedures.

Approved claim pattern

We provide inputs. We describe what we can produce and document at batch level.

Use: “can support…”, “where accepted…”, “subject to operator MRV plan and verification…”

If it’s not measurable, repeatable, and evidenced, it’s not a headline claim.

Forbidden claim pattern

We promise outcomes. We imply guaranteed acceptance, penalty avoidance, default overrides, or liability removal.

Avoid: “ensure compliance”, “prevent penalties”, “override defaults”, “certified for MRV”.

Even if intended as metaphor, external readers often interpret literally.
Approved Claims
Use these (and variants) in external copy
Category Approved claims (examples) Boundaries / notes
Product identity • “ASTM-grade drop-in Jet A-1 (tLCAF)”
• “Drop-in Jet A-1 chemistry with documented fuel properties”
• “zLCAF: development pathway toward ultra-low/zero aromatics variants (spec-bounded)” 		Do not imply SAF, credits, or mandated SAF compliance.
Avoid “certified by regulators” unless documented.
Documentation • “QA + traceability evidence pack (CoA, batch ID, custody trail, delivery records)”
• “Chain-of-custody documentation available per batch”
• “Third-party test reports where available” 		Only promise what we can produce routinely.
Clearly label third-party vs internal.
Operational framing • “Designed for fast market entry: drop-in fuel + standard QA”
• “Low operational choreography: documentation cadence aligned to procurement/assurance workflows”
• “Supports auditability and review” 		“Supports review” ≠ “delivers verification.”
Keep it workflow-support, not compliance-service.
MRV-aware language • “Can help reduce reliance on default assumptions where primary fuel-property data is accepted”
• “MRV interpretation remains airline-controlled and verifier-led”
• “Provides inputs that can be used (or not used) within the operator’s MRV plan” 		Always conditionalize: can / where accepted / subject to.
Never claim acceptance is guaranteed.
Performance claims • “High inherent lubricity / ultra-low sulfur (as evidenced by CoA)”
• “Lower aromatics profile vs baseline fuel (per test results)”
• “Batch-level properties documented and traceable” 		Tie to evidence: CoA, lab report, method.
Avoid climate outcome claims unless carefully bounded.
Forbidden Claims
Do not use these phrases; use the safer rewrites
Forbidden claim / phrasing Why it’s risky Safe rewrite
“Compliance infrastructure” Implies we deliver compliance outcomes or operate a regulated compliance workflow. “Evidence pack” / “QA + traceability documentation”
“Ensures compliance / guarantees acceptance” Outcome guarantee; acceptance is operator/verifier/regulator dependent. “Can support…” + “subject to operator MRV plan and verification”
“Overrides defaults / eliminates default penalties” Implies control over reporting defaults and regulator treatment. “Can help reduce reliance on default assumptions where accepted”
“Prevents liabilities / avoids penalties” Legal exposure; reads like a warranty against enforcement risk. “Supports auditability and review; does not constitute assurance”
“Certified/approved for MRV” Regulatory claim; must be formally true and evidenced. “Documentation available to support verification review”
“NEATS/system integration” (unqualified) Implies technical integration and scope we may not have contractually. “Formatted outputs available on request” / “operator ingestion support”
Any SAF crediting implication Category confusion; tLCAF/zLCAF are not SAF unless explicitly structured as such. “Drop-in Jet A-1 + documentation; not a crediting mechanism”
Agency-Brief Template
Paste this paragraph into briefs and external copy

Standard “bounded claims” paragraph

DM-XTech supplies ASTM-grade drop-in Jet A-1 (tLCAF) and a development pathway toward zLCAF variants, together with a QA + traceability evidence pack (batch identity, test results/CoA, custody trail, and delivery records where available). Any non-CO₂ MRV interpretation remains airline-controlled and verifier-led, subject to the operator’s MRV plan and applicable verification procedures. DM-XTech does not provide regulated compliance services, verification opinions, or outcome guarantees; we provide fuel and supporting documentation inputs for operator evaluation.
Quick rule for reviewers: if a sentence sounds like a warranty (“ensures”, “prevents”, “guarantees”), rewrite it into an input-based, conditional statement (“can support”, “where accepted”, “subject to…”).