Attestwire › Rule reference › BR-62

BR-62 The seller electronic address needs a scheme identifier

noun · EN 16931 · fatal · BT-34

For a sample invoice, the library reports: The seller electronic address (BT-34) must have a scheme identifier. The bare value "x" is ambiguous — the same string can be a VAT number under one scheme and a GLN under another, and the receiving access point resolves it by scheme.

Business term

BT-34

Severity

fatal

The fix

Set electronicAddress.schemeId to the Peppol EAS code, e.g. "9930" for a German VAT identifier, "0204" for a Leitweg-ID, "0088" for a GLN.

A passing value

"electronicAddress": { "schemeId": "9930", "value": "x" }

What the library returns

The full error returned by @attestwire/en16931. It includes the rule ID, affected field and suggested correction. Developers can use this object in their application:

{
  "rule": "BR-62",
  "field": "BT-34",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "The seller electronic address (BT-34) must have a scheme identifier. The bare value \"x\" is ambiguous — the same string can be a VAT number under one scheme and a GLN under another, and the receiving access point resolves it by scheme.",
  "fix": "Set electronicAddress.schemeId to the Peppol EAS code, e.g. \"9930\" for a German VAT identifier, \"0204\" for a Leitweg-ID, \"0088\" for a GLN.",
  "example": "\"electronicAddress\": { \"schemeId\": \"9930\", \"value\": \"x\" }",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cbc:EndpointID/@schemeID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-62"
}

xpath is always a UBL path. On a CII invoice, look for the matching CII field instead.