Blocked

Is there anything in this besides coffee?

ALS-COFFEE-1.3-INGR-001

This question matters to a buyer and CANNOT be answered from a public product page today. What would be required is stated in full.

Why this cannot be run

Blocked by G-06, G-10.

Assertion

ingredient_declaration is_stated true

Applicability

applies when
the product contains anything beyond roasted coffee — flavourings, sugar, chicory, other grains, or a creamer
signal
undecidable_from_public_data — whether anything was added is itself the question being asked

Accepted evidence

  • product_description — a complete ingredient declaration in descending order of weight, in a labelled field rather than in marketing prose
  • structured_data — the same declaration inside the JSON-LD product description

Explicitly insufficient evidence

What does not count, and why. Published because the omission is where a check quietly becomes a claim.

  • "100% Arabica"
    That is a botanical species claim rather than an ingredient declaration, and a hundred-per-cent-arabica coffee can still be flavoured.
  • "100% coffee" in marketing prose
    The same words in prose and in an ingredients field have different legal functions, and a text match cannot tell them apart.
  • "no additives", "no fillers", "nothing but beans"
    Negative marketing claims are not the positive declaration the rule requires, and they are unverifiable as stated.
  • "natural flavour" listed without the base ingredient
    An incomplete list reads as a complete one, which is worse than no list for a reader trying to check.
  • an ingredient list scraped from a different variant on a multi-variant page
    The flavoured variant's list shown against the unflavoured one asserts something false about the offer being bought.
  • a photograph of the back panel
    Image content is not machine-readable, so a text-only check would score a compliant page as non-compliant — a false positive rather than a finding.
  • "unflavoured" where flavour was introduced before roasting
    Flavour added at green stage sits outside the reasoning a flavour-labelling check would apply, so the word can be true in the seller's mind and misleading to the buyer.

Conflict rules

  • When the page is silent and the product may or may not be flavoured — then the entry does not apply; silence on a single-ingredient food is expected and must never be reported as a missing declaration

Discrimination

Authored expectation: no prediction, confidence low. The numeric band this standard used to carry is not published at this grammar version.

Among flavoured coffee pages a full declaration in a labelled field is far from universal, so a real split is plausible. The band applies only to the products this entry covers, and the applicability signal being undecidable from public data is itself part of what blocks it.

The numeric fail-rate band this reasoning was authored with is NOT carried at grammar 1.2 and is not reproduced here. Authored bands held 1 of 10 against this category's own sample and every miss was HIGH, so a direction derived from the band would inherit the error that condemned it (SCHEMA.md §9.3 step 3). The band survives in ALS-COFFEE v1.1 (standard_hash f8ec2780f60c38931913e5b6cd37506500c8462709209de7180ba6691d6137e7), which is byte-frozen and still served.

For a shopper

Plain coffee is a single-ingredient food and needs no list, so an absent list is normal. For a flavoured coffee it is the only way to know what you are drinking, and a flavour system can carry things a shopper would want to know about.

For a merchant

For anything beyond plain roasted coffee, publish the complete ingredient declaration in a labelled field on the product page, and keep each variant's declaration attached to that variant.

Grounding

  • EU Regulation 1169/2011, Article 9(1)(b) and Article 14(1)(a) (legal_instrument)
    that the list of ingredients is a mandatory particular and must be available before the purchase is concluded in distance selling, since only the durability date is carved out — which makes this a genuine pre-purchase page duty rather than a package-only rule