Explaining the Importance of Integrators to the Washington Cannabis Industry

An exploration of integrators across Washington’s cannabis industry and CCRS

The Bottom Line Up Front

In Washington, integrators exist because CCRS is a regulatory reporting hub—not a seed-to-sale system—and integrators are the technical translators that turn diverse business operations into CCRS-compliant regulatory records.

Overview
Integrators are third-party software vendors powering Washington’s cannabis supply chain. That means, WSLCB defines what data must be reported, CCRS defines how it must be structured, licensees can choose any internal system, and integrators act as the bride between a licensee and the CCRS system.

Integrators perform four core functions. These are data normalization, identifier management (licensee-specific-generated IDs), schema compliance and version control, and submission, validation, and error handling.

Washington deliberately chose a hub-and-spoke reporting model rather than a single mandated vendor, like Metrc.

Without integrators, each licensee would have to:

• Build CCRS-compliant exports themselves

• Maintain schema changes

• Handle validation errors, and

• Track version reporting requirements

Most licensees cannot do this internally.

Washington CCRS Integrators

Registered CCRS Integrators in Washington State

Integrator ID	Integrator Name	Status
36	Appspensary LLC	Active
4	Bamboo Metrix	Active
12	BioTrackTHC	Active
15	Blaze Solutions Inc	Active
18	Canix	Active
39	Canix	Active
35	Cannabis Cloud	Active
16	Cova	Active
9	Cultivera	Active
38	DOPE CPA	Active
7	Dauntless	Active
14	Distru	Active
21	Dutchie POS	Active
3	GrowFlow	Active
6	Intelligent Automation Consulting LLC	Active
32	Jane Technologies Inc	Active
37	Kaleidoscope Technologies Inc.	Active
2	KlickTrack	Active
20	MaxQ Technologies Inc.	Active
8	Mister Kraken	Active
1	OpenTHC-WeedTraQR	Active
5	POSaBIT	Active
17	QuantumLeaf Solutions	Active
33	Retail Technology Services LLC	Active
13	Silverware Inc.	Active

Integrators vs Metrc-style vendors (why WA feels harder)

Dimension	Washington (CCRS + Integrators)	Metrc states
State system	Reporting hub	Full workflow system
Identifiers	Licensee/integrator generated	State-issued RFID
Vendor choice	Many integrators	One vendor
Flexibility	High	Low
Standardization	Lower	Higher
Data modeling burden	On integrators/licensees	On Metrc
Innovation potential	Higher	Lower

Washington traded uniformity for flexibility.

Regulatory implications (important for audits & enforcement)

Licensees are still responsible, even if the integrator made the mistake. Mismatches between physical inventory and CCRS = compliance risk. Integrators are not regulated licensees and the CCRS data is treated as the official record.

In this respect, CCRS audits focus mostly on unique identifer usage, negative inventory, timing mismatches (sold before creating inventory), orphaned records, and tranfer chain breaks.

When Identifiers Matter More Than Strain/Product Names

Identifiers dominate in these analyses:

Analysis type	Unique Identifier importance
Inventory reconciliation	Critical
Plant lifecycle tracking	Critical
Transfer lineage / chain of custody	Critical
Negative inventory detection	Critical
Integrator behavior comparison	Critical
Resubmission / correction detection	Critical
Longitudinal facility analysis	Critical

Summary Comparison: Washington vs Other States’ Traceability Programs

State	Primary state traceability program	Platform approach	Tagging / unique ID model (high level)	Notable operational implication
Washington	CCRS (Cannabis Central Reporting System) (WSLCB)	In-house reporting hub; licensees/integrators submit required data per WSLCB specs; ongoing required CSV/report updates ([GovDelivery][2])	Uses licensee-created external identifiers for reported entities/events	More variability across POS/ERP tools; heavier integrator dependence; compliance often looks like reconciliation + correct file/spec submission
Massachusetts	CCC seed-to-sale; Metrc system of record	Single vendor system (Metrc) with direct UI/API workflows	Metrc’s serialized tag/package model (Metrc platform)	More standardized workflows across businesses; “complexity” is shifted into Metrc conventions/training rather than state-specific file specs
California	CCTT (California Cannabis Track-and-Trace) using Metrc	Single vendor (Metrc) implemented statewide	Uses UIDs/tags within CCTT/Metrc	Very large scale; extensive event logging across distribution chain; significant compliance overhead but standardized tooling
Colorado	State track-and-trace using Metrc	Single vendor	Explicitly references RFID unique identifiers integrated in Metrc	High auditability; the RFID component can increase cost/handling burden relative to non-RFID implementations
Oregon	OLCC Cannabis Tracking System (CTS) (Metrc)	Single vendor	Metrc tracking for required activities (planting → sale)	Standardized tracking expectations; strong documentation ecosystem (OLCC + Metrc wiki)
Michigan	CRA statewide monitoring system: Metrc	Single vendor	State describes serialized tags for plants + labels for packages; RFID referenced	Standardized workflows; significant package/plant tagging discipline
Oklahoma	OMMA seed-to-sale: Metrc	Single vendor	Metrc statewide compliance requirement	Standardized tooling, but high licensee counts can make training/support and operational consistency a challenge

Washington’s traceability feels “more complex” than states like Massachusetts largely because Washington has a long history of vendor churn and system remediation, and a materially different technical model than many states that standardized on a single commercial “seed-to-sale” platform.

Washington’s CCRS can feel more complex than Metrc model simply because Washington built CCRS in-house as a replacement/stop-gap after prior vendor failures, CCRS is structured as a reporting hub (often file/spec driven), not a single end-user application, and Washington’s rules emphasize “keep data completely up-to-date” in the state traceability system.

While CCRS requires third-party integrators for most commercial users, the system does not retain integrator-level metadata in transactional records. As a result, regulators cannot evaluate submission infrastructure performance, detect vendor-specific outages, or correlate compliance patterns with software platforms. This limits CCRS’s usefulness not only as a traceability tool, but as a regulatory monitoring system. In short, at this time, the CCRS platform cannot see itself and this is not only a structural limitation but a regulatory one too.