Capricorn Ridge 4 Wind Farm

Integrity

The issuance record shows additionality was verified by the VVB, and the project uses ACM0002 with a project baseline, which is supportive for a wind avoidance project. The leakage deduction is stated as 0%, but the record also contains multiple corrective actions and material findings, including calculation errors and outdated ERCOT data, so the emissions accounting is not fully clean. Reversal risk is not a major issue for wind, but the record says reversal events are not addressed, which is a minor weakness.

Transparency

The monitoring period, VVB name, and verified emission reductions are clearly stated, and the monitoring approach uses smart meters. However, total claimed reductions are not found in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low, which suggests at least one key source was hard to read. The presence of several corrective actions also indicates the reporting trail was not fully straightforward.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because this is an avoidance project with a quantified leakage deduction of 0% and a stated baseline method. Still, the record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted facts alone. The contradiction on leakage treatment, where one document appears to have treated leakage as not addressed while the later issuance record says it was quantified, lowers confidence in the claim boundary.

Documentation

Documentation quality is weakened by low extraction confidence and by the number of corrective actions listed in the issuance record. The VVB is named and many documents were used, but the record also contains contradictions on leakage treatment, reversal events, grievance mechanism, and the crediting period. I privileged the later issuance record dated 2023-01-11 for the main values because it is more recent and appears to be the authoritative issuance-stage source, but the contradictions still reduce reliability.

Overall

The project looks materially better than a weak carbon credit, but it is not high confidence because the documentation is messy and the issuance record contains several corrective actions. I privileged the later issuance record from 2023-01-11 over older conflicting entries because it is more recent and likely reflects the final verified state, but I still discounted the score because the contradictions show the source set is not fully consistent. Under the gate rules, documentation is not low enough to cap transparency, and integrity is not below the threshold that would cap overall, but both remain constrained by the reliability issues.