2.7 of the second doc has a list of additional material bu think this is OK.
Look OK but there is one bit that concerns me
"DCP will be supplied with a validation report confirming SMPTE compliance Report should be generated from a recognised DCP mastering tool in html, xml or txt format"
Ime getting the nasty dealing DCP-O_Matic may not be a recognised DCP mastering tool, if not could talk to BFI with a view to getting DCP-O-Matic recognised.
I would probably ask them, if you can. I know that parts of the BFI are aware of DCP-o-matic's existence, but I don't know if this extends to the department which accepts/rejects incoming DCPs.
I'm assuming this is the archive side and they need to be pretty on it to make sure anything they take in will work and not cause problems in future. I'm more familiar with the exhibition side but I'm pretty sure they will do an easyDCP validation (or ClairMeta?) and they want you to have checked it first so they don't waste time on a bad DCP.
The best thing to do is ask. Archives in general are pretty supportive of open source with a preference for this over proprietary. So I would be surprised if using DCP-o-matic would be a problem.
Listen to all the warnings in o-matic you get when creating the DCP and verify in player and I'm sure it will be fine.
"DCP will be supplied with a validation report confirming SMPTE compliance Report should be generated from a recognised DCP mastering tool in html, xml or txt format"
So two possible questions. Is DCP-O-Matic a "recognised DCP mastering tool " and the fact it does not seem to produce a compliance report.
I can only find a form for there sales team. Does anyone have ant other contact details?
In the newer versions you can save a report from the verifier (either from the player or the separate verification tool). It's not as comprehensive as the EasyDCP one (yet) but it's something, at least.