BAITANG AONONG SWINE FARM COMPOSTING PROJECT

Integrity

The validation report (2023-07-17) confirms additionality via an investment test, which is a stronger additionality basis than a purely qualitative barrier claim. The baseline is described as project-specific, and the timing of any baseline reassessment was not found in the extracted record, which weakens confidence in baseline robustness over the 2021–2031 crediting period. Leakage is explicitly not addressed in the extracted record (no justification and no deduction stated), which is a material integrity gap for a manure management/composting activity. No reversal buffer information was found in the extracted record; while reversal risk is typically lower than for sequestration projects, the absence of stated risk treatment still reduces robustness.

Transparency

The extracted record identifies the VVB (CTI Certification Co., Ltd.) and includes a stakeholder consultation document alongside the validation report, supporting basic transparency. However, the monitoring period and both claimed and verified emission reductions were not found in the extracted record, so the quality of MRV and the ability to reconcile calculations cannot be assessed. The record also does not provide usage monitoring details, which limits understanding of how activity data are tracked under the applied methodology.

Claim Safety

Over-crediting risk is elevated because leakage is not addressed in the extracted record and there is no stated leakage deduction, leaving uncertainty about whether any displaced emissions or indirect effects were considered. The extracted record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so buyers cannot rely on those labels to reduce greenwashing risk. The validation report notes corrective actions tied to a technology change and updated calculation spreadsheets, which can be normal but increases the need for careful scrutiny of final credited quantities.

Documentation

Documentation is moderately strong because the extracted record includes a recent validation report (2023-07-17), references stakeholder consultation, and indicates safeguards elements such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism. At the same time, the validation report lists corrective actions required (technology change and modified project description/ER spreadsheet), suggesting earlier inconsistencies that needed resolution. Several key quantitative fields (monitoring period, ER totals, leakage deduction) were not found in the extracted record, indicating remaining evidence gaps. The minimum extraction confidence is medium, which is acceptable but not as strong as a fully high-confidence extraction.

Overall

No contradictions were listed in the extracted record, so there are no cross-document discrepancies to resolve. The overall score is pulled down mainly by missing MRV quantifications (no monitoring period and no verified/claimed ER totals found) and by leakage not being addressed, both of which increase over-crediting and claim risk. Positively, additionality is VVB-confirmed in the validation report and safeguards elements are indicated, supporting a mid-range overall assessment. Note: if documentation were to fall below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0 (not applied here).