DG_Yongheng Project
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions are not stated in available documents.
inferred Project is labeled as renewable energy avoidance, but the absence of baseline and MRV evidence makes integrity indeterminable.
Transparency
missing No VVB, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed results are available in the extracted record.
missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured.
Claim Safety
missing No information on baseline method, grid factors, usage/production monitoring, or eligibility statuses was found, elevating greenwashing/over-crediting risk.
inferred No contradictions were detected, but this is likely due to missing documents rather than confirmed consistency.
Documentation
missing Zero evidence documents were captured (0 documents used), indicating severe documentation gaps.
missing Low extraction confidence reduces reliability of any conclusions drawn from the extracted record.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents (PDD, monitoring report, or verification report) were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions are not stated in available documents. Because the project is an avoidance renewable energy activity, integrity depends heavily on baseline and MRV details that are missing here. This warrants a very conservative integrity score.
Transparency
The extracted record contains no VVB name, monitoring period, or any claimed-versus-verified results from a monitoring or verification report. With no evidence documents listed, public traceability and MRV transparency cannot be evaluated. Transparency is therefore scored very low.
Claim Safety
Key claim-safety elements—baseline method, any grid emission factor approach, and whether results were independently verified—are not stated in available documents. Eligibility indicators (such as CORSIA or CCP status) are also not found in the extracted record, so buyers cannot assess double-claiming channel risk from the available evidence. Given these gaps, the risk of overstated claims is high.
Documentation
The extracted record shows 0 documents used and an empty evidence document list, indicating that core documentation was not available for assessment. The minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable, further reducing reliability. Documentation is therefore scored near the floor (note: documentation < 3.0 would cap transparency under the stated gate rules).
Overall
There are no listed contradictions, but this appears driven by the absence of documents rather than confirmed consistency across sources. With zero captured evidence and low extraction confidence, none of the core quality determinants (additionality, baseline, leakage, MRV, verification findings) can be substantiated, so the overall score is necessarily very low. Under the gate rules, the very low documentation score would cap transparency post-scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation beyond basic identifiers, so additionality, baseline setting, leakage treatment, and MRV quality cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high due to lack of verifiable evidence.
Project Description
The site of the photovoltaic power generation project of Lianjiaba Reservoir in Xinnong Town, Donggang City, Dandong. The project covers an area of nearly 9,000 mu, with a construction scale of 300MW and a total investment of 2 billion yuan.The project cleverly uses local resources to lead Donggang Xinnong Town to get rich as soon as possible and achieve green and sustainable development through the mode of water power generation and underwater fish farming.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, and monitoring.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, increasing the risk that critical constraints or findings were missed.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the core document set (program/project description, monitoring report, and independent verification/assurance statement) with clear dates, monitoring period, and verified MWh/ERR figures.
- Disclose baseline approach (including grid emission factor source/method and any reassessment timing), leakage assessment/deduction (if applicable), and registry/eligibility statuses to reduce over-crediting and double-claiming risk.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
No additionality assessment found
Avoidance type but no evidence of reversal provisions
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not stated
No safeguards evidence found
Eligibility/status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →