Issue

In the classic SAP EHS system, Expert Rules (developed using Expert Rule Editor in CG02) are widely used to automate processes like classification, property value calculation, and data inheritance.

In S/4HANA Product Compliance New Functionality, there is no direct support for Expert Rules. This creates a gap for customers migrating from the classic system who depend on these automated rules.

Recommendation

Replace Classic Expert Rules with a combination of:

• Business Rule Framework plus (BRF+)

• Change Request Workflows

• Regulatory Rule Content (via SAP Content Services)

• Custom logic using BAdIs and CDS views (if required)

Background & Context

• In legacy SAP EHS (CG02-based), Expert Rules were used to:

  • Auto-derive property values.

  • Copy composition data.

  • Apply regional compliance logic.

• Expert Rule functionality is not carried forward in the new Fiori-based Product Compliance apps.

• SAP now promotes rule-based checks via integrated services, supported by BRF+, predefined compliance patterns, and marketability rules.

Assumptions

• Customer is migrating to or already using S/4HANA Product Compliance (New).

• Composition data, DG, SVT, and Marketability checks are managed in the new compliance framework.

• Business rules used in classic Expert Rules are still relevant and required post-migration.

Constraints

• BRF+ and new rule mechanisms may not cover 100% of legacy Expert Rule logic.

• Regulatory rule subscriptions (like SAP Content) may be required to replicate certain automated checks.

• Custom logic via BAdIs might increase implementation effort and complexity.

• There’s no UI-based Rule Editor as intuitive as the CG02 Expert Rule Editor.

Impacts

Business Rules

Examples of business rules to be rebuilt:

• Copy composition from reference material

• If DG classification = X, then apply specific packaging group

• If substance is SVHC, then block marketability in EU

• Calculate concentration sum for a regulatory group

These can be re-implemented using:

• Compliance Rule Patterns

• Marketability Templates

• BRF+ functions

• Regulatory content from SAP

Options considered

List the options (viable options or alternatives) you considered. These often require a longer explanation with diagrams, or references to other documents (links are best, but attachments are also possible). Use enough detail to adequately explain what you considered so that a project or business stakeholder reviewing this decision will not come back and ask "did you think about...?"; this leads to loss of credibility and questioning of other decisions. This section also helps ensure that you considered enough suitable alternatives rather than just copy/pasting SAP's recommendations.

Option A: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option B: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option C: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option D: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Evaluation

Outline why you selected a position. The best format could be a pro/con table (sample below), but is up to you as the author. You must consider complexity, feasibility, cost/effort to implement, but also ongoing operational impact and cost. You must consider the program principles and explain any deviations in detail. This is probably as important as the decision itself.

	Option A	Option B	Option C	Option D
Criterion 1	Pro Con	Pro Pro	Pro Con	Pro Con
Criterion 2	Pro Con	Con	Pro Pro	Con Con
Criterion 3	Pro	Con	Con	Pro

See also

Insert links and references to other documents which are relevant when trying to understand this decision and its implications. Other decisions are often impacted, so it's good to list them here with links. Attachments are also possible but dangerous as they are static documents and not updated by their authors.

Change log