diff --git a/content/policies/license-expectations.md b/content/policies/license-expectations.md
index eef5d8a6da6cdadf85602f2d2c3623483f1b3c1f..9271d49ec0debec7413351a0545c145bb59e6061 100644
--- a/content/policies/license-expectations.md
+++ b/content/policies/license-expectations.md
@@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ different copyright holders.
 
 Maintaining the open source licenses documentation is an incremental process:
 
-At the time of rebase, licenses are checked manually for all packages involved
-in the rebase. This covers the whole archive.
+At the time of rebase, licenses are checked for all packages involved in the
+rebase. This covers the whole archive.
 
 During the development, updates are monitored. The integration of a new
 project in Apertis and the update of source code are the operations that can
@@ -98,13 +98,43 @@ licensing constraints to the software stack of preview and product releases.
 These constraints do not affect development releases, and it is possible to
 save some work on those releases.
 
-In an ideal situation, regular checks of the whole archive would be automated
-to ensure nothing escaped the manual checks. While the
+Regular checks of the whole archive have been integrated into Apertis CI
+pipelines to provide early detection of any change to the licensing status of
+each package. A copyright report is generated and kept updated using
+[scan-copyrights]( {{< ref "#scan-copyrights" >}} ), helping
 [Apertis maintainers]({{< ref "contributions.md#the-role-of-maintainers" >}})
-are already manually checking packages, the automated whole-archive checks are
-not currently implemented.
-[Future improvements]( {{< ref "#future-improvements" >}} ) presents a possible
-solution.
+to detect problematic licenses or missing information which may require manual
+check. [Future improvements]( {{< ref "#future-improvements" >}} ) presents
+an alternative solution.
+
+## scan-copyrights
+
+As a first step, the entire package source tree needs to be scanned to detect
+and find copyright holders and known licenses for each file. In order to achieve
+that, `scan-copyrights` tool has been integrated to Apertis CI pipeline,
+rescanning and updating a copyright report for each package on every release.
+
+Written in Perl, `scan-copyrights` tool from
+[libconfig-model-dpkg-perl](https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libconfig-model-dpkg-perl/)
+uses [licensecheck](https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/licensecheck)
+to parse the source files, detect known licenses and copyright statements,
+outputting the result in plain text or a Debian copyright file format.
+
+Apertis packages keep an exhaustive copyright report in
+`debian/apertis/copyright`, containing information for **every** file in the
+source tree. During this process, missing information and *unacceptable*
+licenses are reported, which may require manual review from developers to
+complete the package copyright report. Two files are used for this purpose:
+
+* `debian/apertis/copyright.yml`: Contains a *mapping* YAML structure, where the
+key is a Perl pattern used to match a path, to manually provide the correct
+copyright information. See
+[Filling_the_blanks](https://manpages.debian.org/buster/libconfig-model-dpkg-perl/Dpkg::Copyright::Scanner.3pm.en.html#Filling_the_blanks).
+
+* `debian/apertis/copyright.whitelist`: Using *git ignore* format, lists files
+that will be ignored if reported with a missing/unacceptable license. Note that
+CI pipeline updates the copyright report with information for **every** file and
+will fail reporting on those problematic entries that weren't whitelisted.
 
 # Apertis Licensing expectations
 
@@ -247,14 +277,13 @@ specific exceptions.
 
 # Future improvements
 
-Manually checking licenses will not scale and may not be done in a deterministic
-way. Introducing automation is a key.
-
 FOSSology is a license reporting tool. It is described in the
 [Automated License Compliance]({{< ref "automated-license-compliance.md" >}})
 document along with an approach to enable end-to-end tracking of licensing
-information. Although we trust the developer to check license, the use of
-FOSSology could help ensure correct identification.
+information. Although [scan-copyrights]( {{< ref "#scan-copyrights" >}} ) has
+helped a lot on automating the process, the approach using FOSSology covered in
+the Automated License Compliance concept will result in a finer grained and more
+reliable license identification through to generation of binary packages.
 
 # Appendix