Empowering Kenyan Families with Clean Cooking
XEP-659456
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any non-compliance findings were not found in the extracted record because no documents were captured.
inferred Cookstove projects commonly have material leakage and usage-rate risks, but the extracted record provides no evidence of how these were handled.
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed emission reductions were found in the extracted record.
missing Registry/public-data completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured.
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline, fNRB, and usage monitoring methods were not found in the extracted record.
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, leaving double-claim/eligibility risk unresolved.
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, so the record is not auditable from the provided evidence set.
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues that further reduce reliability.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No integrity-relevant parameters were found in the extracted record because no official documents were captured (evidence document list is empty). As a result, additionality testing, baseline selection/reassessment, leakage deductions/justification, and any material findings or corrective actions cannot be confirmed. Given the sector (cookstoves), the absence of evidence on usage monitoring and leakage controls is a material uncertainty.
Transparency
Transparency is very weak because the extracted record contains no verification/monitoring documentation (0 documents) and does not provide a VVB name, monitoring period, or any claimed-versus-verified emission reduction figures. With minimum extraction confidence flagged as low, even basic registry-style completeness cannot be relied upon from the extracted dataset.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is low because key over-crediting controls for cookstoves—baseline and fNRB approach, usage monitoring method, and any discrepancies between claimed and verified reductions—were not found in the extracted record. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status were also not found, so eligibility-related marketing claims and double-claim risk cannot be screened.
Documentation
Documentation quality is poor: the extracted record shows zero evidence documents and zero documents used, making independent review impossible from the provided materials. The low extraction confidence further indicates that at least one key source was poorly readable, increasing the likelihood that important details were missed or misinterpreted.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is not reassuring because the record contains no underlying documents to cross-check. With 0 documents and low extraction confidence, the project cannot be scored on substance and must be treated as high uncertainty across integrity, transparency, and claim safety. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality determinants (additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring performance) cannot be validated. Given the low readability flag and zero documents captured, the project should be treated as high uncertainty with elevated over-crediting and greenwashing risk until primary documents are reviewed.
Project Description
OTHER
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, leakage, and monitoring.
- Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or misread critical details.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2025 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the PDD, latest monitoring report, and latest verification report so baseline, fNRB, usage monitoring, leakage, and any findings/corrective actions can be validated.
- Provide registry/public documentation showing VVB identity, monitoring periods, and claimed vs verified emission reductions (including any revisions), plus explicit CORSIA/CCP status.
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 evidence found
Reversal/buffer not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
No baseline method found
No safeguards evidence found
Eligibility/CCP status not evidenced
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 →