Sorry for a short delay in replying to your query - I was on holiday last week. When we originally set up this database we prepared separate CF for renewable and non-renewable secondary fuel, as you noticed. But in ecoinvent with cut-off allocation applied, there are just two flows that are unequivocally secondary fuels and thus contribute to the indicators: blast furnace gas and energy wood. Because of that, in practice I found it just as easy to separate the renewable from the non-renewable by ascribing both to "secondary fuel" then working with the flow contributions to the total as it was to generate separate results for RSF and NRSF (i.e. we have done in practice what you outline in your second post). Therefore we didn`t use the "renewable secondary fuel" CF in the end. I accept your feedback that it would be clearer if we did so, and the indicator values were then separated in the impact assessment result. We will do that in future versions.