2014-P5

Integrity

The verification record supports the project on additionality because it says additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and it reports no material findings or corrective actions. That said, the baseline method is not stated, and leakage, buffer pool, and reversal information are also not found in the extracted record, so the integrity case is only moderate.

Transparency

The monitoring period and crediting period are clearly identified, which helps traceability. But the VVB name is not found, and the record does not provide total ERR claimed versus verified, so public-facing MRV completeness is weak.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by missing evidence on leakage treatment, permanence protections, and usage-rate monitoring. The methodology is named, but without stated leakage deductions, CORSIA eligibility, or CCP status, the risk of over-crediting or overstated climate claims remains material.

Documentation

Documentation quality is limited because the extracted evidence set is sparse and one source is listed as unknown. The extraction confidence is medium, which is better than low, but many core fields are still not found, reducing confidence in the completeness of the record.

Overall

The project shows some positive integrity signals, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported findings. However, the record leaves major gaps on baseline, leakage, permanence, and registry-claim eligibility, which depresses both transparency and claim safety. There are no contradictions to resolve in the extracted facts, so the score is driven mainly by missing documentation rather than conflicting evidence.