report.json and reportPackage.json, exactly

Two tiny files tell the processor what it is looking at. The ESAs accept them with whitespace and a software block; Banca d'Italia asks for the exact minimal form; the CBI stops with 'Cannot determine Taxonomy Schema Reference' when either is missing or misplaced.

META-INF/reportPackage.json

{"documentInfo":{"documentType":"https://xbrl.org/report-package/2023"}}

reports/report.json

{"documentInfo":{"documentType":"https://xbrl.org/2021/xbrl-csv","extends":["http://www.eba.europa.eu/eu/fr/xbrl/crr/fws/dora/4.0/mod/dora.json"]}}

• The extends URL is the EBA DORA module for reporting framework 4.0. It is a name, not a download: the processor must know it. A later framework version will change the 4.0 element; the 2026 collection used 4.0 and ACPR explicitly refused 4.2.
• The ESAs' filing rule 2.26 asks for eba:generatingSoftwareInformation in report.json. Its absence is a warning (missingOrIncorrectSoftwareInformation) in OneGate and e-Reg feedback, never a rejection, and if present it must be complete.
• File names are case-sensitive: META-INF, reports, report.json. Reports/ or Report.json fails 701.
• Byte-order marks before the opening brace have broken JSON parsing in the CBI portal; save as UTF-8 without BOM.

The builder writes both files; the packager rewrites them in minimal form for INFOSTAT.