Aliaga Wind Farm

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and says the baseline was last reassessed in 2024, which supports methodological credibility. On the downside, leakage is not addressed in the latest verification record even though an earlier document described it as negligible, and reversal handling is inconsistent across the record. The report also notes many corrective actions and clarifications, although they were closed before issuance.

Transparency

The project has a named VVB, Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd., and a recent verification report dated 2026-02-17, which helps transparency. But the extracted record does not state claimed or verified issuance totals, and key monitoring details such as usage monitoring method are not found. The low extraction-confidence flag further reduces confidence that the documentation is fully legible and complete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by inconsistent treatment of leakage and reversal risk, both of which matter for over-crediting risk. The project is CORSIA-eligible, which does not by itself imply a problem, but it does mean the claim environment is more sensitive. The baseline was reassessed in 2024, which is positive, yet the unresolved contradictions keep the score below a strong level.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is decent, with 28 documents used and a verification report that records closed corrective actions. However, the extraction confidence is low, which indicates at least one key source was difficult to read. Several important items are missing from the extracted record, including verified issuance totals, usage monitoring details, and buffer pool coverage.

Overall

I privileged the latest verification report dated 2026-02-17 for leakage and reversal treatment, because it is the most recent and project-specific source, but I discounted confidence because earlier documents conflict with it on both points. I also privileged the latest crediting-period information over the older period listed in the contradictions, again because it is more recent, but the existence of that contradiction still lowers reliability. The project is credible enough to avoid a very low score, yet the combination of low extraction confidence, many corrective actions, and unresolved document conflicts keeps the overall assessment moderate.