Avonmouth Production Facility

Integrity

The verification report indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test, and it reports no material findings and no corrective actions. However, the baseline is described only as project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record. Leakage treatment (deduction and justification) is also not stated, and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool or any reversal monitoring outcomes were not found in the extracted record, which weakens integrity confidence.

Transparency

The extracted verification record provides the VVB name (350Solutions, Inc.) and a clear monitoring period (2024-10-01 to 2025-09-30). At the same time, key MRV elements that would allow independent scrutiny—such as the leakage deduction, leakage justification, and the usage monitoring method—are not stated in the extracted record. Transparency is further reduced by inconsistencies across documents in the verified removals figure and by low extraction confidence.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of high-stakes aviation-related claims. Nonetheless, claim safety is constrained by missing leakage and baseline reassessment information in the extracted record, both of which are central to over-crediting risk in alternative materials methodologies. The presence of conflicting verified removals values across documents also increases the risk that external claims could rely on an inflated or outdated figure.

Documentation

A recent verification report date (2025-12-19) is available, and the extraction indicates 12 documents were used. However, the minimum extraction confidence is low, implying at least one key document was poorly readable, and the evidence document list is not identifiable beyond an 'unknown' entry in the extracted record. These gaps reduce traceability and make it difficult to validate key quantitative and safeguards-related assertions.

Overall

I privileged the more recent values where dates were provided: for verified removals I used 14,873 because it appears in the later-dated record (2024-12-27) rather than 20,831 (2024-08-05), and for the crediting period I used 2023-10-01 to 2024-09-30 (2024-12-27) rather than 2022-10-01 to 2023-09-30 (2024-08-05). For safeguards, the extracted record is contradictory (one document indicates safeguards were mentioned while a later-dated record indicates they were not), so I treated safeguards as not reliably evidenced and scored safeguards-related aspects conservatively. These contradictions, combined with low extraction confidence and missing leakage/permanence details, materially reduce confidence in the project’s reported outcome and therefore lower the overall score. Note: documentation is below 3.0, so a transparency cap may be applied downstream by the gate rules.