The important distinction is not simply getting a different number. It is preserving an explainable relationship between the number an organization calculated before and the one it now considers appropriate.
What the planned restatement capability includes
According to Microsoft’s roadmap listing, users would be able to identify the calculation being restated, capture the reason for the revision, and retain calculation history. The described scenarios include:
- Correcting calculation errors.
- Incorporating better activity data or updated emission factors.
- Changing calculation methodologies.
- Reflecting organizational or structural changes.
The listing marks the feature as in development, with a January 2027 preview and July 2027 general availability target. Its stated scope is the web platform in Worldwide (Standard Multi-Tenant) environments. These are planning estimates, not evidence that the capability is available now; Microsoft explicitly warns that roadmap descriptions and dates can change. The individual entry was not exposed in the retrieved roadmap page, so its feature details and schedule remain attributed to the listing metadata.
Restating is not the same as rerunning
Microsoft’s existing documentation provides a useful operational contrast. In its guidance for the separate alternate-emissions preview, which supports calculations for different reporting standards, Microsoft says rerunning a calculation profile deletes previous emissions associated with the resulting activity and recalculates them through the new calculation job. That statement belongs to that documented scenario; it should not be generalized into a claim about every calculation workflow.
The planned restatement feature describes something different: retaining the original result alongside a subsequent calculation, with a recorded explanation.
Consider a hypothetical reporting team that receives corrected activity data after completing a calculation. Producing an updated result answers “What is the revised figure?” Preserving the original and documenting the reason also helps answer “Why did it change?” That second question is where the proposed workflow could provide its greatest practical value.
This is an assessment of the described design—not a promise of regulatory acceptance, audit certification, or automatic updates to published disclosures.
What users can trace today
There is already a documented way to investigate the activity data behind an emissions record. Microsoft Learn says records generated by the Dynamics 365 Sustainability calculation engine contain source information connecting emissions to their underlying activity data. This existing capability provides useful context, but it is not the forthcoming restatement workflow.
For supported, calculation-engine-generated records, Microsoft documents these steps:
- In the left navigation, open Data, then All emissions.
- Locate the emissions record and inspect its Source column.
- Select the record in that column to view the associated activity data.
- Alternatively, open the emissions record for a more detailed view, then select Source to inspect the underlying activity record.
A successful trace opens the activity record used for the calculation. There is an important boundary: Microsoft says this functionality does not trace precalculated emissions imported into the product. Nothing in the restatement listing establishes that the planned feature will remove that limitation.
In short, tracing explains the inputs behind a result. The proposed restatement workflow would address the relationship between an earlier result and its revision. Those are complementary questions, not interchangeable features.
Questions administrators should keep on the checklist
The roadmap description leaves several implementation details unspecified. Before adopting the feature, sustainability teams and their IT administrators should seek confirmation of:
- Calculation coverage: Which emissions records and calculation types can be restated?
- Permissions and approval: Who can initiate or authorize a restatement?
- Reporting behavior: How will dashboards and exports distinguish original and revised results?
- Retention: What controls govern how long both results and their history remain available?
- Imported data: Will precalculated imported emissions have any supported restatement path?
These are evaluation questions, not announced capabilities. In particular, preserving two results does not, by itself, explain which result downstream reporting will select.
The practical promise is straightforward: make corrections without making the previous calculation disappear. If Microsoft delivers the workflow as described, Dynamics 365 Sustainability could give reporting teams a clearer account of what changed and why. Until the preview and implementation documentation arrive, however, organizations should treat it as a planned improvement—not a replacement for their existing correction, review, and reporting controls.