Balikesir Susurluk 45 MW Wind Farm Project

Integrity

The project has some solid integrity signals: the validation report identifies an investment test and says additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the baseline was reassessed in 2025. However, permanence is weaker because reversal events are not addressed in the extracted record, buffer pool coverage is not found, and the FAR about adding 11 turbines suggests design-change management issues that needed follow-up. Leakage is presented as negligible with a 0% deduction, but the contradiction with an earlier quantified leakage treatment lowers confidence.

Transparency

Transparency is only moderate because the monitoring period is stated and the VVB is named, but the extracted record does not provide verified issuance totals, claimed issuance totals, or a usage monitoring method. The registry and methodology are identified, yet the absence of public-facing performance details limits MRV clarity. The low extraction confidence also suggests at least one key source was difficult to read, which further weakens documentation quality.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. The project is a wind farm under a standardized methodology, leakage is treated as negligible, and the baseline is project-based, which is not unusual for this sector. Still, the record does not clearly show CORSIA ineligibility or CCP approval status, so dual-claim risk is not fully resolved, and the contradictions around leakage and the crediting period reduce confidence in the claim boundary.

Documentation

Documentation is below average because, although 23 documents were used and the project has a recent validation report, the extraction confidence is low. Several important items are missing or not stated in available documents, including buffer pool coverage, usage monitoring, and verified issuance totals. The presence of multiple closed CARs and CRs shows active review, but it also indicates the project required substantial corrective work before issuance.

Overall

The project appears viable but not especially high-confidence from a credit-quality perspective. I privileged the most recent validation report dated 2025-08-12 for the investment-test framing, the negligible leakage treatment, and the 2025 baseline reassessment, because it is the latest and most specific source; however, I downgraded confidence because the contradictions show earlier documents reported a combined additionality test, quantified leakage, none-reported reversals, and an earlier crediting period. The grid emission factor contradiction is especially notable because the record shows both 0.607 and 606.942..., which likely reflects unit or extraction inconsistency rather than a true methodological change, but it still weakens reliability. Under the stated gate rules, the documentation score is above 3.0 so no transparency cap is triggered, and integrity is above 4.0 so the overall cap does not apply.