Allain Duhangan Hydroelectric Project (ADHP)

Integrity

Additionality is indicated as confirmed by the VVB, supporting the project’s additionality case, but the specific additionality test type is not stated in the extracted record (validation/monitoring documentation referenced). The monitoring report (2020-06-20) reports no material findings and no corrective actions, which supports procedural integrity for the monitored period. However, the baseline method and the date of any baseline reassessment are not stated in the extracted record, and leakage is marked as not addressed with no stated leakage deduction, which weakens confidence in the baseline and net ER robustness under ACM0002.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2020-06-20) clearly states the monitoring period (2016-10-01 to 2019-09-30) and identifies the VVB as LGAI Technological Center, S.A. (Applus+ Certification). The record also provides a grid emission factor value (0.737), which helps interpret calculations at a high level. Transparency is reduced because key contextual items are not stated in the extracted record (baseline method, leakage deduction, and CORSIA/CCP status), limiting independent replication and claims interpretation.

Claim Safety

For the reported period, the monitoring report (2020-06-20) shows claimed ERs equal verified ERs (1,535,217), which lowers the risk of simple over-issuance for that verification event. Nonetheless, leakage is not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated in the extracted record, and baseline details are not evidenced, which increases over-crediting risk in public claims. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, so buyers cannot easily assess whether the credits might be marketed into multiple integrity frameworks without further due diligence.

Documentation

The extracted record references multiple core documents (monitoring report, validation report, and PDD) and indicates high extraction confidence, supporting document completeness and readability. The monitoring report is dated 2020-06-20 and covers a defined monitoring period, suggesting reasonably current MRV for that issuance cycle. Documentation quality is weakened by an inconsistency between documents on the crediting period start date, which signals a need for clearer registry-aligned project metadata.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: the monitoring report (2020-06-20) indicates a clean verification outcome (no findings/CARs) and exact agreement between claimed and verified ERs, but important integrity elements (baseline approach, reassessment timing, and leakage treatment) are not evidenced in the extracted record. One contradiction is present: the crediting period start date is 2010-09-16 in the monitoring report (2020-06-20) versus 2010-07-17 in the validation report (2020-11-26). For scoring, the monitoring report date was privileged because it is the operational MRV document tied to quantified issuance for the monitored period, but the inconsistency still reduces confidence and slightly lowers documentation/transparency.