9.6 MW Wind Energy Project at Jamvadi & Navagam & Kalavad, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India of Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd.

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and identifies no reversal events, which supports the project's core environmental case. However, the baseline is described only as project-based, the leakage treatment is not addressed, and the monitoring record does not provide a buffer pool or other permanence backstop. These gaps reduce confidence in the robustness of the credited reductions.

Transparency

The project is tied to Gold Standard and has a named VVB, with a clear monitoring period from 2018-10-21 to 2020-12-31. But the extracted record does not state total emission reductions claimed or verified, and the verification report lists multiple CARs and missing source documents. That combination points to only moderate transparency.

Claim Safety

Wind projects have inherently low reversal risk, and the record shows no reversal events reported. Still, leakage is not addressed despite a zero deduction, and CORSIA eligibility is marked true while CCP status is not stated, so the claim stack is not fully clean. The missing quantified FNRB and usage-rate fields also limit confidence in over-crediting risk assessment.

Documentation

The evidence set includes the monitoring report and PDD, and the VVB is identified, which is a positive sign. Even so, the extraction confidence is only medium, and the verification report explicitly notes missing commissioning certificates, technical specifications, calibration details, and emission-reduction support. Those omissions materially weaken documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the monitoring report and verification report where they were more specific and recent, but the record still contains contradictions that lower reliability. In particular, the monitoring report says leakage is not addressed, while another extracted source suggests it was quantified; I gave priority to the explicit monitoring-report statement because it is the more direct source for MRV treatment. I also privileged the later monitoring-period definition over the earlier one, since the contradiction concerns the crediting period and the later report appears to reflect the updated issuance context. The project is credible enough to avoid a low score, but the missing evidence and unresolved MRV issues keep it in the middle range.