feat(seed): restructure industrial processes into IPPU branches

[mrivas00]

Context

Two reviewers flagged the same gap in Alcance 1: the industrial-process catalogue only covers cement, glass, steel and zinc, so a company running any other process has nowhere to declare it.

Gabriela: si la empresa realiza procesos industriales distintos a acero, fundición de metales, cemento o vidrio (por ejemplo industria química), no hay dónde incorporarlo.

Gianluca: en emisiones directas, ¿no es muy restrictivo solo acero, cinc y vidrio?

They are right, and the standards say why. The current set of four is an arbitrary subset of the IPCC IPPU tree: it includes glass and zinc, which the GHG Protocol's own sector table does not list, and omits lime, aluminium, chemicals and pulp & paper, which it does (GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, Appendix D "Industry Sectors and Scopes", pp. 92–93).

Nothing here needs code. The catalogue is seed data plus the maintainer screens, and no migration has ever touched methodology content — migrations in this repo are schema-only.

Two options, and why there are two PRs

Neither standard requires a subcategory per material. The GHG Protocol's own Alcance 1 taxonomy has a single "process emissions" bucket (ch. 6, p. 41), and subdividing by source type is explicitly optional information (ch. 9, p. 63). The IPCC, meanwhile, structures IPPU as a two-level hierarchy — branch (2A mineral, 2B chemical, 2C metal, 2H other) then leaf (2A1 cement, 2A2 lime, …), with an explicit Other (please specify) leaf on every branch (2006 GL Vol. 3, Fig. 1.1, p. 1.5).

So the real question is only where the boundary between subcategory and dimension falls. Both options cover the same IPPU leaves.

	Option A — IPPU branches (this PR)	Option B — one subcategory per process
Branch	feat/mati/industrial-processes-ippu-branches	feat/mati/industrial-processes-per-process
Subcategories in Alcance 1	11 → 11	11 → 18
…of which industrial	4 → 4	4 → 11
Shape	subcategory = branch, Proceso → Material o método cascade	subcategory = process, one flat dimension
Existing four subcategories	replaced	untouched
Dimension values / seeded IPCC factors	79 / 41	66 / 33
Adding a process later	a dimension value in the maintainer UI, no release	new subcategory + explanation + release
Reporting granularity	per branch (2A / 2B / 2C / 2H)	per process
Reduction-plan initiatives	per branch — cement and glass share a bucket	per process, exact
Explanation guides	4	11
Installed deployments	the four existing subcategories need rework via the maintainer screens	purely additive

The costs are real on both sides and neither is free:

• A collapses the per-process breakdown in reports (carbon_inventory_subtotals_view aggregates by subcategory) and blunts initiative targeting, because getSuggestedReductionPlan filters only by subcategoryId. ReductionPlanInitiative already has dimensionValue1Id / dimensionValue2Id columns, so scoping initiatives to the process later is a query change, not a schema change.
• B keeps that granularity but grows Alcance 1 to 18 subcategories, 11 of them industrial. useSubcategoryPreselectionData lists every subcategory of the methodology (recommended ones merely sort first), so every user — a bakery, a law firm — scrolls past all of them.

Recommendation: A. It matches the IPCC hierarchy, keeps the subcategory count flat, and turns "there is nowhere to put my process" into a maintainer-screen edit rather than a recurring release. B is the safer choice if the priority is not touching data that already exists in RD/demo.

These two PRs are mutually exclusive — merge one and close the other. Option B: #609

What this PR does

Replaces the four leaves with the four IPPU branches:

Procesos industriales - Minerales (2A)   Cemento · Cal · Vidrio · Cerámica · Otros usos de carbonatos · Otro
Procesos industriales - Química  (2B)    Amoníaco · Ácido nítrico · Ácido adípico · Caprolactama ·
                                         Carburo · TiO₂ · Carbonato de sodio · Petroquímicos ·
                                         Fluoroquímicos · Otro
Procesos industriales - Metales  (2C)    Hierro y acero · Ferroaleaciones · Aluminio · Magnesio ·
                                         Plomo · Cinc · Otro
Procesos industriales - Otros    (2D, 2E, 2G, 2H)  Papel y celulosa · Alimentos y bebidas ·
                                         Electrónica · Lubricantes · Ceras · Solventes · Otro

• Dimension 1 Proceso is required; dimension 2 Material o método cascades from it via parentValue and is optional, so leaving it blank is itself the escape hatch.
• Every branch ends in a bare Otro, matching the convention established on feat/mati/machinery-catalog-otro-option (the dimension name supplies the context, and the capture dropdown sorts that exact literal last).
• Reduction-plan initiatives and sector recommendations are re-keyed onto the branches; the four leaf explanation guides are replaced by one guide per branch.

Emission factors

All values are IPCC 2006 Guidelines, Volume 3 (IPPU) Tier 1 defaults, read from the published PDFs, in kg/ton:

Process	Source	Values
Cemento	§2.2.1.3	clinker 520
Cal	Table 2.4	750 · 770 · 590
Vidrio	Table 2.6	210 · 190 · 250 · 200 · 100 · 30 · 180 · 130
Hierro y acero	Table 4.1	BOF 1460 · EAF 80 · OHF 1720 · global 1060 · sinter 200 · coke 560 · pig iron 1350 · DRI 700 · pellets 30
Ferroaleaciones	Table 4.5	2500 · 3600 · 4000 · 4800 · 1300 · 1500 · 1400 · 5000 · 1300
Aluminio	Table 4.10	Prebake 1600 · Søderberg 1700
Plomo	generic factors by furnace	590 · 250 · 200 · 520
Cinc	Tier 1 table	Waelz 3660 · ISF 430 · default 1720

Química and Otros seed no defaults, deliberately. The IPCC values there are per-gas (N₂O for nitric and adipic acid, fluorinated gases for 2B9), and collapsing them into a single kgCO₂e figure would bake in a GWP choice that belongs to whoever owns the methodology. Those processes require a custom factor, and the explanation walks through the conversion.

Dolomitic lime uses 0.77, the value IPCC Table 2.4 recommends for developing countries, rather than 0.86.

⚠️ Aluminium seeds only the anode-consumption CO₂ factor, which is all Table 4.10 covers. PFC emissions from the anode effect are excluded. The explanation states this and instructs a separate line, because the seeder cannot express a per-gas split — EmissionFactor.gasDetails exists and is validated against the total, but seedEmissionFactors hardcodes it to {}.

First commit applies to both options

0aacb29 normalizes the four existing subcategories to kg/ton, and it is a behaviour change worth reading closely:

• Acero and Cinc were understated by 1000×. They carried the IPCC tonne-CO₂-per-tonne figures (BOF 1.46, Waelz 3.66) while declaring the rate unit as kg/ton, so the seeded factor read as 1.46 kg CO₂ per tonne of steel. Corrected to 1460 and 3660.
• Cemento and Vidrio were numerically right (kg/kg equals t/t) but only offered when declaring in kilograms. The emission editor matches a factor by exact rate-unit denominator and performs no unit conversion, so declaring clinker in tonnes — which the subcategory guide teaches step by step — fell through to a custom factor. Now they resolve in tonnes.
• Grams are dropped from the allowed units: meaningless at this scale, and they only widened the set of unit choices that resolve to no factor.

Any existing inventory using steel or zinc process emissions will change when reseeded. That is the point, but it should be a conscious call.

Verification

• pnpm format:check, pnpm lint, pnpm type-check — all clean.
• Both datasets parse against the real FullMethodologyDataSchema: 23 subcategories, 4 industrial, 79 dimension values, 41 factors, identical in base and testing.
• Checked against the constraints that only bite at seed time or in the editor: unique (subcategory, code) and (subcategory, position) on dimensions, unique (dimension, value) on values, unique (subcategory, dv1, dv2, source) on factors, every factor's rate-unit denominator present in the subcategory's allowed units, every parentValue and factor reference resolving, and one explanation file per subcategory.
• Not run: the seed itself against a live database.

Out of scope, found on the way

1. 25 of 255 seeded emission factors are silently dropped. Combustiones estacionarias (-20) and Combustiones móviles (-5) declare the same fuel three times with the same source and different rate units (kg/kWh, kg/m3, kg/ton). The unique index emission_factor_unique_subcategory_dims_source does not include the rate unit, and createMany runs with skipDuplicates: true, so only the first survives. Declaring diesel in litres or m³ therefore finds no library factor. Same root cause as the cement issue above; worth its own fix.
2. gasDetails is never seeded. The column supports a per-gas breakdown and is validated against the total, but the seeder writes {}. Populating it would let aluminium carry its CO₂/PFC split and satisfy the per-gas reporting both ISO 14064-1 and the GHG Protocol require.
3. No new sector recommendations. Chemical subsectors still do not recommend the chemical process subcategory. Deliberately left out so the two PRs differ only in structure; worth a follow-up so the feature is discoverable rather than merely present.
4. Overlap with refactor/mati/remove-factor-propio-source. That branch relabels the custom factor source to Otro. The explanation guides here say "Factor propio", matching main today — whichever lands second needs a pass over the new guides.

CI

22 of 24 checks pass. Audit and Trivy Image Scan (api) fail on deepmerge-ts 7.1.5 (CVE-2026-40345), a transitive dependency of @prisma/client. Pre-existing on main and unrelated to seed data — already addressed on fix/mati/deepmerge-ts-cve.