Aperam BioEnergia

Integrity

The project applies the Puro.earth Biochar Methodology (Edition 2022 v3) and uses a project-specific baseline approach, but the timing of any baseline reassessment was not found in the extracted record. The verification report (2025) reports no material findings, which is positive, yet it also requires corrective actions on biochar stock reporting and multiple LCA elements, which can directly affect quantified removals. Leakage is described as quantified, but the leakage deduction percentage was not found in the extracted record, leaving net climate benefit uncertain. Buffer pool contribution and any reversal events were not found in the extracted record, limiting assessment of permanence controls for stored carbon in biochar.

Transparency

The verification report (2025) identifies the VVB as EnergyLink Services and provides a defined monitoring period (2024-03-01 to 2025-03-31). However, the extracted record does not include total removals claimed or verified, preventing a basic reconciliation of issuance quantities to monitored outcomes. Key MRV descriptors such as the usage monitoring method and any assumed/verified usage rate were not found in the extracted record, reducing replicability of the accounting. Registry details are minimal (listed as "other"), and the evidence document reference is not specific ("unknown").

Claim Safety

Additionality is described as an investment test, but confirmation by the VVB was not found in the extracted record, which weakens confidence for high-integrity claims. The baseline is project-specific and key quantification items (verified removals, leakage deduction value) were not found in the extracted record, elevating over-crediting risk. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility were not found in the extracted record, creating uncertainty for buyers about how the credits can be marketed and whether any additional eligibility screens apply. The presence of corrective actions in the verification report (2025) related to LCA and stock reporting further increases the risk that early claims could be revised.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates 10 documents were used and the minimum extraction confidence is medium, supporting a mid-range documentation score. Still, the evidence document list is not specific (shown as "unknown"), which makes it hard to trace key assertions back to named sources. The verification report (2025) includes multiple corrective actions (biochar stock reporting and several LCA calculation inputs), suggesting that documentation and data systems were not fully satisfactory at the time of verification. Crediting period information was not found in the extracted record, limiting assessment of recency and program-cycle completeness.

Overall

No contradictions were flagged in the extracted record, so no cross-document discrepancies could be resolved or prioritized. The overall score is driven down primarily by missing quantified outcomes (claimed/verified removals), missing leakage deduction value despite leakage being described as quantified, and the presence of multiple corrective actions in the verification report (2025) affecting core accounting elements. Safeguards signals (FPIC and a grievance mechanism) and the absence of material findings in the verification report (2025) provide some support, but do not offset the MRV and disclosure gaps. Note: gate rules may cap transparency if documentation were scored below 3.0, and cap overall if integrity were below 4.0 (not triggered by these scores).