The model underneath says something else

EF 3.1's three toxicity categories are USEtox 2.1 — the JRC's own report says so and lists the adjustments made on top of it. For these 38 substance-and-category pairs the two are more than a hundredfold apart in every compartment, and sometimes a millionfold: EF 3.1 characterises biphenyl, an ordinary industrial chemical, at 0.19957 CTUh for a kilogram emitted to urban air — two hundred cases of disease per tonne, and third of the 3,380 substances EF characterises there, above mercury — where USEtox 2.1 gives 0.00000014. Neither published implementation can see this, because both transcribe the same file and therefore agree. So the consensus implementation publishes nothing here until somebody rules, and the two transcriptions are untouched: EF 3.1 says 0.19957 and this list goes on saying that under the JRC's name. What answers one of these is whether the method's number should be published in spite of the model — a `publish` ruling naming an implementation, if the adjustment was deliberate and the report explains it, or a `decline` if it was not. The metals are deliberately not here: EF replaced USEtox's metal factors with ones derived from EU data sources, and that is a decision rather than a defect (#552).

contradicted-factor