CECIC HKC Danjinghe Wind Farm Project

Integrity

The project has a project baseline under ACM0002, and the baseline was last reassessed in 2015, which supports some methodological structure. However, additionality is not stated in the extracted record, the leakage justification is explicitly marked as not addressed, and reversal events are also not addressed, so the integrity case is only moderate.

Transparency

The verification body is identified as China Classification Society Certification Company, and the validation findings were reportedly closed, which helps. But the monitoring period is not found, and the extracted record does not provide claimed or verified emission reduction totals, usage monitoring, or other registry-level detail needed for strong transparency.

Claim Safety

As a wind project, the underlying activity is relatively low risk for over-crediting compared with many other project types. Even so, the claim-safety assessment is weakened by the project-specific baseline, missing leakage treatment, and the absence of any stated CORSIA or CCP status in the extracted facts.

Documentation

The record includes a PDD and indicates six documents were used, with a named VVB and a stated crediting period. Still, extraction confidence is only medium, and the contradictory crediting-period dates between two PDD versions reduce confidence; I privileged the later PDD dated 2019-10-31 because it is more recent, but the inconsistency remains a documentation weakness.

Overall

Overall, this project sits in the lower-middle range because it has some structural strengths but several important evidence gaps. The contradiction on crediting period between the 2019-10-31 PDD and the earlier 2019-01-20 PDD was resolved by privileging the later, more recent document, yet the inconsistency still lowers reliability. Under the stated gate rules, the score is not pushed down by a very low documentation score, but the missing additionality and leakage evidence keep the overall assessment cautious.