Aller à l’essentiel de l’information
Gratuit · Membres de la Community
＋ Afficher 6 de plus− Afficher moins
＋ Afficher 5 de plus− Afficher moins
Rapports réels publiés
Ouvrir le rapport →
Ouvrir le rapport →
Ouvrir le rapport →
✓ Assistant IA LRA · Supervision humaine
Ouvrir la source officielle →
Explore the California course →
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act·Disclosure SB253-ASSURANCE
Third-party assurance
Guide pratique pour préparer cette information. Utilisez cette fiche pour identifier les données à préparer, vérifier les affirmations et organiser les preuves. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle CARB.
Passeport publié
Révision en attente
···
En cours de révision
Révision éditoriale en cours
Élaboré à partir des sources officielles et de preuves issues de rapports publiés. Aucun approbateur n’est encore enregistré : cette page ne porte donc pas de signature.
Utilisez-la avec la source officielle CARB tant que cette révision est en cours.
Norme
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Disclosure SB253-ASSURANCE · 2026-initial-regulation-as-amended-sb219
Dernière révision
—
Support pédagogique LRA · Non publié ni approuvé par CARB
Pour préparer cette information
Objet de l’information
This disclosure is about whether the organisation has had its greenhouse gas reporting checked by an independent third party, and what that review covered. In practice, the organisation should explain the assurance arrangement in a way that makes clear which emissions information was reviewed, how far through the business the review reached, and whether the check was limited to selected parts of the inventory or applied more broadly.
The practical focus is on coverage and credibility, not just the fact that assurance exists. A useful explanation should help a reader understand whether the assurance covered the organisation’s full operations or only certain entities, sites, or emissions scopes, and whether the review was designed to support confidence in the reported figures as a whole or only in a narrower subset.
Ce support pédagogique LRA aide à préparer l’information. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle CARB.
Avant de commencer
Avant de commencer
Une courte liste de contrôle avant de préparer cette information — cochez chaque point une fois réglé.
Préparation
Informations clés à préparer
| Champ à préparer | Ce qu’il faut recueillir | Indice de preuve | Responsable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 and 2 coverage | State the assurance level applied to the emissions figures for direct emissions and purchased-energy emissions. | Assurance statement or report, plus the final emissions schedule showing which scopes were covered. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
| Assurance caveats | Capture any stated limits, exceptions, or reservations attached to the assurance work. | Assurance report wording, including any qualifications, exclusions, or scope restrictions. | Sustainability reporting / Legal |
| Assurance conclusion | Record the provider’s overall conclusion on the assured information, using the exact outcome they reached. | Signed assurance opinion or conclusion section from the provider’s report. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
| Assurance provider | Identify the external party that carried out the assurance work and issued the statement. | Engagement letter, provider letterhead, or signed assurance report naming the firm or practitioner. | Procurement / Sustainability reporting |
| Scope 3 assurance status | Show whether the value-chain emissions information was assured, and if so, the status or extent of that assurance. | Assurance report and the Scope 3 inventory or disclosure table showing the assured portion. | Sustainability reporting / Supply chain |
| Assurance method standard | Name the assurance framework or method the provider used for the engagement. | Assurance report, engagement terms, or provider methodology statement naming the standard applied. | Sustainability reporting / Finance |
＋ Afficher les sous-éléments de SB253-ASSURANCE (liste de travail LRA)
State the assurance level applied to Scope 1 and Scope 2 data.
Set out any limits, caveats, or exceptions attached to the assurance work.
Provide the assurance provider’s overall conclusion or opinion.
Name the assurance framework or method that was used.
Identify the external, independent party that carried out the assurance.
Explain whether Scope 3 information has been assured, and if so, to what extent.
Comment le préparer
Start by pinning down what the assurance covers: identify the emissions areas, the level of assurance, and whether any separate treatment applies to Scope 3. Keep the scope statement aligned to the item you will report.
Confirm who carried out the work and what method they used. Record the external assurance provider and the assurance framework or approach named in the report, using the same source documents throughout.
Gather the supporting material behind the assurance result. This should include the evidence the provider relied on, plus the underlying records needed to support the stated level, status, and conclusion.
Prepare the disclosure text itself in clear business language. Set out the assurance level for Scope 1 and Scope 2, the conclusion reached, and any note on Scope 3 status, making sure each item matches the source evidence.
Add any caveats or boundaries that affect how the assurance should be read. If the provider set limits, exceptions, or qualifications, describe them plainly and keep them tied to the relevant part of the assurance statement.
Before finalising, check the disclosure against the official source and the provider’s report. Make sure the wording, figures, and narrative are consistent, and that nothing material has been omitted or changed in translation.
Demander les données
Request the assurance pack from Finance
Traduisez l’information en une question métier interne, puis adaptez-la au vocabulaire de votre organisation.
What third-party assurance evidence do we have for our Scope 1, Scope 2, and any Scope 3 emissions reporting, and who provided it?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the reporting fields. For example, ask for the assurance letter, review note, or external verification pack in the terms your team already uses, rather than using framework wording in the request.
Demande faible
Please provide the third-party assurance evidence for the disclosure.
Pourquoi elle échoue : This is too framework-led and vague. It does not tell the owner which reporting period, which emissions areas, which document type, or which caveats matter, so the response may be incomplete or hard to use.
Meilleure demande
Please send the signed external assurance or verification document for [reporting period] covering our emissions reporting, plus the provider name, what parts of the inventory it covers, the conclusion, and any limitations or qualifications. Use your team’s usual document names and include the file link.
Modèle d’e-mail formel
Subject: Request for assurance evidence for emissions reporting Hi [name], We are preparing the disclosure pack for [reporting period]. Please send the latest external assurance or verification evidence covering our emissions reporting, including: - the provider name; - the emissions areas covered; - the assurance statement or report; - any limitations, qualifications, or exceptions noted by the provider; and - the basis used in the provider’s conclusion. Please also confirm the file location and the internal contact who can answer follow-up questions. If there are multiple documents, please send the final signed version and any supporting notes we should keep on file. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Version courte pour Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you send the latest external assurance/verification pack for [reporting period] for our emissions reporting? Please include the provider name, what it covers, any caveats, the conclusion, and the file link. Please use your team’s usual document names and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks.
Exemples sectoriels
Manufacturing
Contexte. A plant-based group has external review of its emissions inventory prepared by a specialist verifier.
Demande adaptée. Please send the latest verification report for [reporting period] covering plant fuel use, purchased electricity, and any other emissions areas reviewed, plus the verifier name, conclusion, and any limitations noted. Use the document name your team uses internally.
Exemple de réponse. Verification report dated [date], verifier [name], covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 for all sites in the group, conclusion states [summary], with one limitation noted for [site]. File stored at [link].
Retail / Consumer Goods
Contexte. A multi-site business has assurance over group emissions data prepared through the sustainability reporting team.
Demande adaptée. Please share the external assurance pack for [reporting period] for the group emissions file, including the assurance statement, the provider, whether Scope 3 was included, and any exceptions or caveats. Please use the same file names your team already uses.
Exemple de réponse. Assurance statement from [provider], dated [date], covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 and selected Scope 3 categories, conclusion [summary], with no material exceptions noted. Supporting files saved in [location].
Rédigez votre information
Des notes qui transforment les données en information publiée
Modèles pédagogiques LRA — adaptez-les à votre organisation et vérifiez la source officielle avant validation.
Note méthodologique
State which emissions areas were reviewed, who carried out the external check, what assurance framework they used, and whether any limits or qualifications were attached to the review.
Note de contexte
Explain what the assurance result means for readers by clarifying the level of confidence reached for the reported emissions data and whether Scope 3 was included or left outside the review.
Déclaration sur les variations
If the assurance outcome changed from the prior period, note whether the shift reflects a different review scope, a change in the external reviewer or framework, or the removal or addition of any qualifications.
Entrée de l’index de contenu
SB253-ASSURANCE Third-party assurance — [location / page] / [notes]Centre de téléchargement
Outils et formulaires de préparation
Outils de préparation professionnels pour SB253-ASSURANCE — gratuits avec l’adhésion à LRA Community. Inscrivez-vous une fois (c’est gratuit) et tous les téléchargements se débloquent, avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA.
01XLSClasseur préparation et assurancePoints de données, risques, preuves à vérifier, responsable et dossier de preuves.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
02XLSPack de demande de donnéesE-mail de demande, modèle de message, champs de réponse et structure de validation.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
03PDFFiche de bibliothèqueRésumé imprimable d’une page de cette fiche d’information.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
Préparation à l’assurance
Pour chaque affirmation, vérifiez les preuves
| Affirmation | Risque | Preuves à vérifier |
|---|---|---|
| We obtained the public assurance pack for the emissions figures, and it names the external reviewer. | The assurer checks whether the published pack is complete and whether the named reviewer can be matched to the engagement. | Published assurance report; cover page or signature page showing the reviewer’s name; final public filing set. |
| For the year in question, we had the external review carried out at the required level for the first two emissions scopes. | The assurer probes whether the engagement level actually matches the level expected for that reporting year, rather than a lower or different form of review. | Engagement letter; assurance report wording on level applied; internal reporting calendar or compliance checklist for the year. |
| Where the review noted any caveats, we kept those points visible in the published material rather than summarising them away. | The assurer checks whether any restrictions, exceptions, or caveats were fully carried through into the disclosure. | Assurance report; redline of the public disclosure; management response or issue log showing how caveats were handled. |
| The assurance report we published includes the reviewer’s overall view and makes clear whether there were any caveats or not. | The assurer probes whether the report states a conclusion and whether the presence or absence of caveats is unambiguous. | Final assurance report; publication pack; sign-off memo confirming the report version released to the public. |
| We used an outside reviewer, not an in-house team, for the assurance work. | The assurer checks whether the reviewer was genuinely external to the reporting entity and its connected entities. | Provider contract; independence declaration; corporate relationship checks; conflict-of-interest records. |
| Before appointing the reviewer, we checked that they had relevant emissions-assurance experience and the capability to complete the work properly. | The assurer probes whether the reviewer had the right competence, capacity, and practical ability for the engagement. | Provider credentials; CVs or team biographies; proposal or tender documents; competence assessment notes. |
Dossier de preuves à préparer
Lacunes fréquentes dans les rapports
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Lacunes fréquentes
Erreurs à éviter lors de la collecte des données
Wrong owner askedThe team chases the sustainability lead for assurance evidence when the audit, finance, or external provider team actually holds the working papers and sign-off trail.
Framework labels used too earlyPeople ask for the data in disclosure language instead of the organisation’s own process terms, so the source team cannot map the request to its normal records.
Scope not pinned downThe collector never states whether the check covers only Scope 1 and Scope 2 or also the Scope 3 status field, so different teams send different slices of data.
Wrong reporting periodEvidence is pulled from a different cut-off date or reporting window than the one used for the disclosure pack, which makes the assurance record inconsistent with the rest of the filing.
Counting basis mixed upOne source gives a status flag while another gives a narrative note, and the collector merges them without keeping the same basis for each field.
Source labels stripped outThe original file names, system tags, or document titles are lost during consolidation, so the reviewer cannot trace each item back to its first record.
Separate populations mergedAssurance details for different entities, sites, or reporting streams are combined into one file even though they should stay separate for review.
Evidence metadata missingThe pack arrives without the provider name, date, version, or other trace details, leaving no way to show where the assurance information came from.
No sign-off trail keptThe final dataset is circulated without a clear approval record, so nobody can show who checked the assurance level, limitations, opinion, standard used, or provider details before submission.
Là où un jugement professionnel est souvent nécessaire
What counts as the covered emissions set after a buy-in or saleIf the reporting boundary changed during the year, explain which sites, entities and activity data were included in the assurance work and how you dealt with any opening or closing-period changes.
Using different country methods for the same activityWhere local data systems or calculation methods differ across countries, state which approach was used for each location and why the final assurance view still gives a like-for-like picture.
Borderline cases for people, assets or operations near the boundaryFor items close to the inclusion line, set out the rule you used to include or leave them out and disclose any material judgement made by management or the assurer.
Choosing the cut-off date and data basisIf the assurance work uses a different timing basis, reporting date or data cut-off from the underlying operational records, explain the basis chosen and any effect on comparability.
Measured figures versus estimates or proxiesWhen direct measurement was not available, disclose where estimates, models or proxy data were used, why they were needed, and whether the assurer treated them differently from measured figures.
Rounding and presentation of the final numbersState the rounding rule used for the assured figures and make sure the published totals still reconcile to the underlying unrounded data within the chosen presentation approach.
Protecting sensitive data by grouping or maskingIf privacy or confidentiality means some detail is combined or hidden, explain what was aggregated, the level of grouping used, and any impact on the assurance conclusion.
Different assurance coverage for direct and value-chain emissionsWhere the assurance work covers direct emissions but not the wider value chain, make clear the split, the reason for any partial coverage, and how that limitation is described in the conclusion.
Exemples
Exemples illustratifs
Synthétiques, rédigés par LRA — ils ne proviennent ni d’un rapport d’entreprise ni du texte d’une norme.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — manufacturing
We have included this synthetic example to show how our group might describe external review of its climate data. For the year ended 31 December 2025, an independent assurance firm reviewed our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions at a limited level of assurance, using ISAE 3000 (Revised) together with ISAE 3410; the conclusion was that nothing came to the reviewer’s attention to suggest the figures were materially misstated. Scope 3 was not covered in the same review, and the report noted a few boundaries and estimation points that narrowed the work performed.
Illustrative only: this example shows how a reporter can explain who performed the review, what level of confidence was reached for direct and purchased-energy emissions, which framework was used, whether indirect value-chain emissions were included, and any caveats on scope or methods.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — transport and logistics
This synthetic example shows one way we might report our external check of emissions information. For 2025, an independent third party provided reasonable assurance over our Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures under ISAE 3000 (Revised), and the conclusion was positive with no material issues identified; however, the reviewer set out a few qualifications linked to data gaps at two sites and excluded Scope 3 from the engagement.
Illustrative only: this example demonstrates a different sector voice while still covering the reviewer, the confidence level for direct and purchased-energy emissions, the assurance framework, the outcome, the limits noted, and the fact that value-chain emissions were outside the review.
Rapports d’entreprises
Comment les entreprises publient SB253-ASSURANCE en pratique
Exemples de pratiques de publication complètes et partielles. Ce sont des analyses fondées sur des preuves, non des modèles à recopier.
Cargill
Food Production — Agricultural · United States · 2025
Cargill’s 2025 Impact Report provides assurance specifically for Fiscal Year 2025 Scope 1 and Scope 2 market-based and location-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as stated on page 109. The assurance provider is identified as KPMG N.V., offering limited assurance on selected sustainability KPIs, though the report only partially details this on page 75. Notably, the report lacks a clear assurance opinion or conclusion, does not provide assurance status for Scope 3 emissions, and does not specify the assurance standard used, leaving these aspects unclear or missing.
Old Dominion Freight Line / ODFL
Ground Transportation — Trucking · United States · 2024
Old Dominion Freight Line’s 2024 Sustainability Report includes assurance on its scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions reporting, as noted on page 6, with reference to a 2024 GHG Inventory Verification Opinion mentioned on page 23. The report also references alignment with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard on page 19, though the assurance standard is not clearly disclosed. Notably, the report does not provide information on assurance limitations, the assurance provider, assurance opinion or conclusion, or the status of scope 3 emissions assurance.
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
Real Estate · United States · 2025
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.'s 2025 Corporate Responsibility Report includes verified data on Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, with Scope 3 emissions specifically verified by AET, as noted on page 54. The report references assurance of its GHG emissions and environmental inventory data for the calendar year 2024, with related assurance statements found on pages 54-55 and 62. However, the report does not provide clear information on the assurance level, limitations, opinion, provider, or the specific assurance standard used, as these datapoints are either not found or unclear.
Interrogez l’assistant IA de Study Studio sur cette information
Obtenez des réponses concrètes pour votre contexte de reporting. Les deux premières réponses sont gratuites — rejoignez gratuitement LRA Community pour continuer sans limite.
Essayez
Comment préparer SB253-ASSURANCE ?
Quelles données dois-je collecter ?
Où voir un exemple issu d’un rapport réel ?
Quelles erreurs éviter ?
2 réponses gratuites
Vérifiez votre compréhension
Scénarios à travailler
A reporting team has a signed assurance report for its Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures. The report names the external reviewer, states the level of review reached, and includes a conclusion, but the team is unsure whether to mention that the reviewer also noted a scope restriction on one site visit.
QWhat should the preparer decide to include when summarising the external review for this disclosure?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
The summary should cover the outside reviewer’s identity, the level reached for Scope 1 and Scope 2, the conclusion, the method or framework used, and any limits or caveats attached to the work. If the report contains a restriction, that limitation should be carried through rather than omitted.
Pourquoi c’est important · Capture the reviewer, the level reached, the conclusion, the method used, and any caveats together so the picture is complete.
An organisation has obtained external review for its direct emissions and purchased electricity data, but its Scope 3 work is still being checked internally and no outside review has started. The draft narrative currently says only that the wider value-chain figures are “under review”.
QHow should the preparer describe the position on Scope 3 assurance?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
The disclosure should make the status of Scope 3 external review clear in plain language, so readers can tell whether it has not started, is in progress, or has been completed. A vague phrase like “under review” is not enough if it does not clearly show the current assurance position.
Pourquoi c’est important · State the current assurance status for Scope 3 plainly, so users can see where the process stands.
A company engaged a specialist firm to review its emissions data, but the draft note does not say whether that firm was independent. The preparer argues that the firm’s name and report title are enough because the reviewer is well known in the market.
QWhat judgement should the preparer make about identifying the assurance provider?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
The disclosure should identify the outside reviewer in a way that shows it was an independent third party, not just a generic service provider. Naming the firm alone may not be enough if the reader cannot tell from the disclosure that the reviewer was external and independent.
Pourquoi c’est important · Make it clear that the review came from an outside, independent provider.
The assurance report says the emissions data were reviewed using a recognised assurance framework and gives a conclusion with a qualification about one data source. The sustainability team wants to shorten the disclosure by leaving out the framework name and the qualification because the conclusion is already “limited assurance”.
QWhat should the preparer do with the framework used and the qualification?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
Both pieces of information should stay in the disclosure: the framework or approach used for the review, and any qualification or limitation that affects the conclusion. The conclusion alone does not replace those details, because readers need to understand both the basis of the work and any constraints on it.
Pourquoi c’est important · Do not rely on the conclusion alone; keep the review basis and any limitations visible.
Références au référentiel
Exigences California applicables et informations connexes
Références disponibles du référentiel et informations voisines utiles à la préparation de cette exigence.
California
SB253-ASSURANCE
au sein de California SB 253 : Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Connexes et exploration
Reporting entity applicability →GHG Protocol methodology and reporting basis → FichePublic disclosure, reporting organization, and fees →Reporting timeline and filing status → FicheScope 1 greenhouse gas emissions → Fiche
Parcourir toutes les informations →
Plus dans California SB 253 → Parcourir le catalogue complet → Accueil de la Bibliothèque des informations → Rechercher dans toutes les informations →
FAQ
Questions auxquelles cette page répond
SB253-ASSURANCE: what should I gather before I start the disclosure draft and how do I use the page’s step-by-step preparation section?+−
Start with the page’s plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section to collect the listed datapoints: Scope 1 and 2 coverage, assurance caveats, assurance conclusion, assurance provider, Scope 3 assurance status and the assurance method standard. The page is designed to help you turn that into a draft, not to replace your own internal process.
SB253-ASSURANCE: which data points does this page say I need to prepare for the disclosure?+−
The page highlights six datapoints to prepare: Scope 1 and 2 coverage, assurance caveats, assurance conclusion, assurance provider, Scope 3 assurance status and the assurance method standard. Use those as the starting checklist for your draft and evidence pack.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how do I decide who owns the data for this disclosure across sustainability, HR, finance or operations?+−
The page does not assign roles for you, but it is set up for practitioner use, so you can use the step-by-step section and workbook to map each datapoint to a named owner. A practical approach is to assign ownership for each item in the evidence pack and for each assurance claim you need to verify.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what evidence pack do I need to make this assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it alongside the six assurance claims to verify so you can show where each claim comes from and what supports it.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what are the six assurance claims to verify and how should I use them?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use them as a review checklist to test whether your draft disclosure is supported and whether any caveats or gaps need to be explained.
SB253-ASSURANCE: what common reporting gaps or mistakes does the page warn about?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check your draft before it goes to review. Use that section to spot missing coverage, unclear assurance wording or weak evidence before you finalise the disclosure.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook and printable Library Card?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the datapoints, evidence and ownership, and use the Library Card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
SB253-ASSURANCE: does the page include an example disclosure I can copy into my draft?+−
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table. Treat them as examples of structure and presentation only, and make sure any figures in your own draft are internally consistent.
SB253-ASSURANCE: how can I turn the page content into a draft disclosure and content-index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you shape the final text. Use those prompts to turn your prepared data and evidence into a clear draft for internal review.
SB253-ASSURANCE: can I reuse data from this page for ESRS E1 (Climate Change)?+−
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should still check the other framework separately.
Autres questions auxquelles cette page peut aider
SB253-ASSURANCE workbook: what should I fill in first for SB253-ASSURANCE?SB253-ASSURANCE evidence pack: how do I build assurance support from the five items on the page?SB253-ASSURANCE step-by-step preparation: what order should I follow?SB253-ASSURANCE common mistakes: what should I check before sending the draft for review?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance claims: how do I test claim, risk and evidence?SB253-ASSURANCE draft output: how do I use the narrative starters and content-index line?SB253-ASSURANCE illustrative example: how should I use the synthetic table without copying it?SB253-ASSURANCE data owner: who should own Scope 1 and 2 coverage, caveats and assurance conclusion?SB253-ASSURANCE Scope 3 assurance status: what should I capture in the draft?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance provider: what information does the page say to include?SB253-ASSURANCE assurance method standard: how should I record it in the disclosure?SB253-ASSURANCE ESRS E1: how can I reuse the same climate data across frameworks?
Aller plus loin · SB253-ASSURANCE
Apprenez à préparer cette information de bout en bout
This guide covers one statutory requirement. The California Climate Regulation course walks SB 253 and SB 261 end to end — applicability, GHG inventories, climate-risk reporting and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Comment cette bibliothèque est construite
312 rapports publiés indexés
63 171 pages avec citations au niveau de la page
272 fiches disclosure conçues par des praticiens
/fr/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/sb253-assurance/
Gratuit · LRA Community
Obtenez vos outils SB253-ASSURANCE — gratuitement
Vos outils de préparation sont gratuits pour les membres de LRA Community et les étudiants. Inscrivez-vous une fois (c’est gratuit) et votre téléchargement démarre aussitôt — avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA.
✓
C’est fait — votre téléchargement démarre
Votre fichier est en cours de téléchargement. Votre Cabinet Community — avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA — est prêt lui aussi.
Ouvrir votre Cabinet →