6.25 MW Wind Power Generation project of Salora International Limited

Integrity

The project benefits from VVB-confirmed additionality through an investment test, and the available verification record reports no material findings. That said, the baseline is described only as project-based, the last reassessment date is not stated, and the leakage deduction percentage is not visible even though leakage is said to be quantified. No reversal events are reported, which is appropriate for a wind avoidance project, but permanence evidence is still limited by the absence of a buffer-pool figure.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the record includes a named VVB, a monitoring period, and multiple official documents, including validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance materials. However, usage monitoring methodology is not stated, and the extracted record does not show the grid emission factor year or a clear leakage deduction value. The large discrepancy in verified ER totals across documents also weakens the clarity of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. The project is a VCS wind project with no reversal events reported and no material findings, which supports lower physical-risk concerns, but the leakage treatment is incomplete in the extracted facts and the baseline is not clearly standardized or recently reassessed. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces one channel of claim risk, but the absence of a visible leakage deduction and the ER discrepancy keep over-crediting risk above ideal.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair but not strong. The evidence set spans several official document types and extraction confidence is high, yet the monitoring report still lists multiple corrective actions, including missing commissioning certificates, meter details, and some historical invoice/JMR gaps. The project dates are also relatively old, with a monitoring period ending in 2016 and later review activity in 2021, so recency is limited.

Overall

I privileged the later validation/verification figures where contradictions existed, because they are more recent and appear to reflect the final reviewed position; this is especially relevant for the verified ER total. I also treated the 2021 monitoring report as stronger evidence for safeguards than the older 2010 report, since it is more recent and explicitly states FPIC, grievance, and benefit-sharing elements. The main reliability issue is the contradiction in verified ER totals and the incomplete visibility of leakage and usage-monitoring details, which justifies a cautious mid-range score rather than a high one.