Attestwire

Rule reference

BR-CL-07 The scheme identifier on the invoiced object identifier (BT-18-1) is "NOPE", which is not in the UNTDID 1153 restriction EN 16931 applies — 818 codes, so a plausible-looking abbreviation is very unlikely to be one of them by accident

The scheme identifier on the invoiced object identifier (BT-18-1) is "NOPE", which is not in the UNTDID 1153 restriction EN 16931 applies — 818 codes, so a plausible-looking abbreviation is very unlikely to be one of them by accident. The object identifier says what the invoice is *about* when that is not a purchase order: a contract, a meter, a vehicle, a case file. Without a scheme the receiver has a string; with the wrong scheme it has a string it will confidently misinterpret.

This rule is implemented and its error payload below is real, but the long-form write-up — normative text, worked example, divergence note — is not written yet. Everything the library knows about this rule is on this page. Ask and we will prioritise it.

Business term
BT-18
Severity
fatal

What the library returns

The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires. Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:

TeachingError
{
  "rule": "BR-CL-07",
  "field": "BT-18",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "The scheme identifier on the invoiced object identifier (BT-18-1) is \"NOPE\", which is not in the UNTDID 1153 restriction EN 16931 applies — 818 codes, so a plausible-looking abbreviation is very unlikely to be one of them by accident. The object identifier says what the invoice is *about* when that is not a purchase order: a contract, a meter, a vehicle, a case file. Without a scheme the receiver has a string; with the wrong scheme it has a string it will confidently misinterpret.",
  "fix": "Set invoicedObjectIdentifier.schemeId to a UNTDID 1153 reference qualifier: \"CT\" contract number, \"ON\" order number, \"AAJ\" delivery order number, \"VN\" vendor order number, \"MG\" meter number, \"IV\" invoice number. Omit the scheme entirely rather than inventing one — the identifier is then emitted without @schemeID, which this rule does not bind.",
  "example": "\"invoicedObjectIdentifier\": { \"schemeId\": \"MG\", \"value\": \"1234567890\" }",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AdditionalDocumentReference/cbc:ID/@schemeID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-CL-07"
}

xpath locates the element in the generated UBL document, which is where a KoSIT or Peppol validator will report the same problem.

A passing value

the shape this field expects
"invoicedObjectIdentifier": { "schemeId": "MG", "value": "1234567890" }

The fix

Set invoicedObjectIdentifier.schemeId to a UNTDID 1153 reference qualifier: "CT" contract number, "ON" order number, "AAJ" delivery order number, "VN" vendor order number, "MG" meter number, "IV" invoice number. Omit the scheme entirely rather than inventing one — the identifier is then emitted without @schemeID, which this rule does not bind.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: BR-CL-08 — The invoice note subject code (BT-21) is "ZZ9", which is not in UNCL 4451 (383 codes); BR-CL-06 — The VAT point date code (BT-8) is "99", which is not one of the 3 codes EN 16931 admits; BR-CL-10 — The scheme identifier on the seller identifier (BT-29-1) is "9930", which is not in the ISO 6523 ICD list (243 codes).

Check this rule against your invoice via the hosted API → https://api.attestwire.com/docs

Arrived from a stack trace? The docsUrl on every error links straight here. Something wrong on this page — tell us.