Define the service that both options must provide
Write the required display area, appearance, duration, locations and campaign changes. Compare complete alternatives capable of providing that service: for example, a retained structure with replacement graphics and a newly supplied display. Do not assume each campaign needs identical quantities or that the current frame is suitable. Record the compatibility and condition evidence still required before the retention option can be considered deliverable.
List every relevant replacement and supporting activity
Identify the substrate, print, finishing, fixings and any changed components for each graphic refresh. Include repair, packaging, transport, storage and end-of-use assumptions where they fall within your chosen boundary. Show when the whole structure would need replacement rather than merely its image. Record missing quantities or applicable factors explicitly; omitting an unknown process cannot be interpreted as a zero impact.
Test scenarios rather than promising a break-even
Create separate cases for fewer campaigns, more replacements or a change in transport. Retain the actual observed deployments in a ledger alongside those planned cases. A lower cost scenario is not automatically a lower emissions result, and a projected number of uses is not achieved reuse. An environmental comparison needs relevant methods, factors, units and data quality for the complete stated boundary.
Make the handover reproducible
Use the Lifecycle comparison input builder or the programme workspace to assemble the service, activity and cost assumptions. Keep factor references and uncertainty with the downloaded record for specialist assessment. Ask the appropriate responsible person to confirm technical suitability before ordering. Local deterministic tools can organise scenarios; they do not supply missing product carbon factors, perform an independently reviewed LCA or guarantee future material savings.