BATISOKE Soke Çimento Sanayii T.A.S. 5.5 MW Cement WHR Project

Integrity

The monitoring report states that additionality was established through an investment test and that the VVB, Rina, confirmed it. Integrity is helped by the statement that no reversal events were reported, but the absence of a buffer pool value and the lack of a clear leakage treatment weaken the overall robustness. The project uses a project baseline, but the baseline was not shown to have been recently reassessed.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring report gives a defined monitoring period and shows total claimed and verified reductions both at 67,780. However, usage monitoring is not stated in the extracted record, and the grid emission factor year is missing. The documentation is also less complete because the baseline reassessment date is not found in available documents.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by the weak leakage treatment: the monitoring report says leakage is not addressed, even though the contradiction log says the validation report quantified it. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers dual-market claim risk, but CCP status is not stated. Matching claimed and verified ER totals is positive, yet it does not fully offset the uncertainty around leakage and safeguards.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair because multiple official documents were used and extraction confidence is high. The record includes validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance materials, and there were no material findings or corrective actions required in the monitoring report. Still, several important items are not stated, including buffer pool coverage, usage monitoring, and baseline reassessment timing.

Overall

The project scores in the middle range because it has a VVB-confirmed additionality test, no reported reversals, and matching claimed versus verified issuance figures, but it also has meaningful evidence gaps. I privileged the monitoring report for leakage, safeguards, and crediting-period information because it is the more recent document, while noting that the contradiction log says the validation report differs on those points; this lowers reliability and the score. The crediting-period contradiction was resolved in favor of the monitoring report as the later source, but the inconsistency still warrants a downward adjustment.