While the validation itself works well, the resulting validation report lacks certain contextual business metadata that would be highly valuable for downstream processing and analysis.
In comparison, the Peppol validation reports provide additional structured information such as:
- SenderID
- ReceiverID
- ProcessID
- ReceiverName
- ReceiverCountryCode
- BusinessDocumentID
This metadata significantly improves traceability, debugging, and integration with business workflows.
Proposed Enhancement
We would like to request an extension of the KSeF validation result to include similar metadata fields where available from the input XML. Specifically, it would be helpful if the validation report could expose:
- Sender identification (e.g., tax ID or endpoint ID)
- Receiver identification
- Business document identifier
- Process or profile identifier
- Receiver details (name, country code, etc.)
Benefits
- Improved traceability of validation results
- Easier integration into enterprise workflows
- Better alignment with Peppol validation reporting standards
- Simplified debugging and auditing
Additional Notes
We understand that not all fields may be directly available or standardized within KSeF documents, but even partial enrichment of the validation output would be highly beneficial.
Please let us know if this is something that could be considered, or if there are recommended workarounds to extract this information alongside validation.
Thank you for your continued work on the validation service!
While the validation itself works well, the resulting validation report lacks certain contextual business metadata that would be highly valuable for downstream processing and analysis.
In comparison, the Peppol validation reports provide additional structured information such as:
This metadata significantly improves traceability, debugging, and integration with business workflows.
Proposed Enhancement
We would like to request an extension of the KSeF validation result to include similar metadata fields where available from the input XML. Specifically, it would be helpful if the validation report could expose:
Benefits
Additional Notes
We understand that not all fields may be directly available or standardized within KSeF documents, but even partial enrichment of the validation output would be highly beneficial.
Please let us know if this is something that could be considered, or if there are recommended workarounds to extract this information alongside validation.
Thank you for your continued work on the validation service!