Baesa Project

Integrity

The project’s additionality is relatively strong because the validation report confirms an investment test and the VVB is identified as Earthood Services Private Limited. Permanence risk appears limited because this is an avoidance project and no reversal events were reported, but the record does not provide a buffer pool percentage. Integrity is weakened by the leakage treatment: the monitoring report says leakage was not addressed, while a validation report reportedly quantified it, so I treat the more recent monitoring report as the more operationally relevant source and score this conservatively.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed. The record includes a named VVB, a monitoring period, and multiple official documents, which helps traceability. However, the monitoring report lists several corrective actions, including missing version/date information, a unit error, and inconsistencies between raw data and the spreadsheet, which reduce confidence in the MRV trail. The extraction confidence is high, so I did not penalize documentation for readability issues.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weak because the verified emissions reductions are much lower than the claimed amount, which suggests a substantial over-crediting risk. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces one channel of market risk, but the contradictory treatment of leakage and the conflicting emissions-reduction figures still undermine confidence in the claimed climate benefit. I privilege the later verified figure for the emissions outcome because it is the more recent validation result.

Documentation

Documentation is moderately complete because the extraction drew on validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance materials, with 25 documents used. The VVB is named and extraction confidence is high, which supports reliability. Still, the monitoring report contains multiple corrective actions and the crediting-period information is inconsistent across documents, so the documentation is not fully clean or internally consistent.

Overall

Overall, I privilege the more recent validation and monitoring evidence where conflicts exist, but I downgrade confidence because several contradictions remain unresolved. In particular, I give more weight to the later verified emissions figure of 2,349,038 over the earlier claimed 4,586,251, and I treat the monitoring report’s statement that leakage was not addressed as more operationally relevant than the earlier quantified treatment. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, but the combination of over-claim risk, leakage ambiguity, and documented corrective actions keeps the overall assessment below average.