Distribution of Improved cook stove - Phase VI

Integrity

The project uses AMS-II.G (version 04.0.0) and reports 55,045 tCO2e verified for the 2012-12-15 to 2017-12-14 monitoring period in the monitoring report (2021-08-24). Additionality is confirmed by the VVB (Earthood Services Private Limited), which supports integrity. However, the baseline approach is not stated in the extracted record, and while leakage is described as quantified, the actual leakage deduction percentage is not found, which weakens confidence in the conservativeness of credited reductions.

Transparency

The extracted record provides clear identifiers (VCS registry, VCS-2427; VVB name; monitoring period; methodology and version) and indicates annual survey-based usage monitoring in the monitoring report (2021-08-24). Transparency is reduced because total emission reductions claimed are not found in the extracted record, preventing a claimed-versus-verified cross-check. In addition, assumed and verified usage rates are not found, limiting the ability for third parties to reproduce the ER calculation from the extracted facts alone.

Claim Safety

Greenwashing risk is moderated by safeguards signals: FPIC is indicated as conducted, a grievance mechanism is present, and benefit sharing is described (as reflected in the extracted record from the project documentation set). Over-crediting risk remains material because the baseline approach is not stated and leakage quantification is not fully evidenced (no leakage deduction value found), both of which are central to cookstove credit quality. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, so buyers cannot easily position the credits against higher-integrity claims frameworks.

Documentation

The evidence set includes core document types (PDD, validation report, monitoring report, issuance) and the extraction confidence is high, supporting a strong documentation score. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is consistent with a clean assurance trail. Some documentation friction remains because the extracted monitoring report date (2021-08-24) is several years after the stated monitoring period end (2017-12-14), and several key quantified parameters are still not captured in the extracted facts.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document over another. The overall score balances strong procedural assurance (VVB-confirmed additionality, clean findings, safeguards elements, and a reasonably complete document set) against missing integrity-critical quantifications (baseline method, leakage deduction percentage, and usage assumptions/verification). Note: if documentation were to fall below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring, and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0 under the stated gate rules.