Clean Cooking - Cook Stove for Rural India

Integrity

The monitoring report (2025-10-03) and VVB involvement (RINA) provide some procedural integrity, but the report records numerous material findings and corrective actions concerning baseline identification, thermal efficiency measurement and fNRB calculation. Leakage is stated as not addressed in the latest documents and no leakage deduction percentage is provided in the extracted record. Reversals are not addressed. These combined shortcomings justify a low integrity score.

Transparency

A named VVB (RINA), a monitoring period (2024-01-01 — 2025-08-31) and a verified ERR figure (148,546) are present in the monitoring report (2025-10-03). However, several transparency-relevant items are missing from the extracted record: buffer pool percentage, total ERR claimed, grid emission factor and some monitoring assumptions. The minimum extraction confidence is low, which further reduces transparency.

Claim Safety

The project is reported as not CORSIA‑eligible, lowering double‑claim risk. However, contradictions in the fNRB method (local field versus national default) and uncertainty in usage-rate monitoring (assumed/verified usage not clearly available) raise over‑crediting concerns. Leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents, increasing claim risk.

Documentation

Although 46 documents were used and the latest monitoring report is dated 2025-10-03, the record shows low extraction confidence and many outstanding corrective actions required from the VVB. Several fields are explicitly not stated in the extracted record (e.g., buffer pool percentage, grid emission factor) and the existence of contradictions between documents (see below) lowers the documentation score.

Overall

I privileged the values from the most recent and explicitly dated monitoring report (2025-10-03) where available. Specific contradictions: (1) fNRB method — I privileged the local field method as reported in the merged facts and dated 2023-11-16, but flagged the contradiction because a national default was also recorded elsewhere; this raises uncertainty in applied emission factors. (2) Additionality verification — later documentation (2024-12-04) indicates additionality was confirmed by a VVB, but an earlier record (2024-05-30) showed it was not; I privileged the later confirmation but reduced integrity score for the contradiction and traceability concerns. (3) Leakage — an earlier document (2024-09-27) indicated leakage had been quantified, but a more recent entry (2024-11-29) states leakage is not addressed; I privileged the more recent not‑addressed status, which reduces leakage and claim safety scores. (4) FPIC, safeguards, benefit sharing and grievance mechanism show contradictions between older and newer records; I privileged the most recent entries (FPIC, safeguards, benefit sharing and grievance mechanism present in 2025-10-03) but this inconsistency and the low extraction confidence reduce overall reliability. Because integrity is below 4.0, a gate rule would cap overall at a maximum of 6.0; the calculated weighted overall score before any post-processing is about 3.6, reflecting the combination of the issues described.