Feedstock reporting gaps limit interpretation of circularity claims across conversion technologies

Abstract Circularity claims in biomass and waste conversion research often depend on feedstock assumptions, but studies do not report baseline management, hazard-related information, and material status consistently. Here we show a Scopus-based evidence map of feedstock reporting across eight conversion technologies. We extract 152,548 feedstock items and retain 133,832 valid items using a deterministic-first workflow with record-level provenance, versioned dictionaries, and audited validation. The map reveals technology-specific reporting patterns and recurring gaps in the information needed to interpret whether feedstocks are primary biomass, wastes, by-products, or commodity inputs, and whether secondary streams carry hazard-relevant qualifiers. We provide a harmonised feedstock dictionary, a reusable labelling infrastructure, and minimum evidence conditions for transparent interpretation of feedstock claims. These findings characterise reporting patterns in a Scopus-indexed and query-constrained evidence base, not real-world deployment, feedstock availability, or sustainability performance. Together, these outputs support more transparent, reliable, and reusable feedstock evidence, enabling better-grounded interpretation of circularity claims across conversion technologies.