Metrc Records the Transfer. It Does Not Record the Transport.
This distinction costs operators more than any other, because Metrc feels complete.
What Metrc knows
A transfer was created. These packages were on it. This licensee sent it, that licensee received it. It closed at this time.
That is a chain of ownership. It is authoritative, it is the state's record, and you are required to maintain it.
What Metrc does not know
- Where the vehicle actually went
- What route it took, or how long it stopped
- The temperature the cargo held
- Who physically handed the product over, and who received it
- Whether the packages loaded were the packages manifested
- What happened to a package the receiver refused
That is the chain of custody, and it is a different record.
Why the gap matters
Metrc tells the Commission a manifest existed and closed. It does not answer "where was that van at 2pm" — and that is the question an audit asks, because it is the one that reveals whether the transport actually happened the way the paperwork says.
A manifest with no custody record behind it is an assertion. A manifest with a GPS trail, package scans, temperature logs and a signature behind it is evidence.
The right relationship between the two
Metrc issues the manifest. It should be the only manifest. An operator who generates their own transport document has created something that looks authoritative and has no legal standing — and sooner or later somebody moves product on it.
The correct model is: the state issues the manifest, and you build the verifiable record of what happened around it.