Gansu Yumen Sanshilijingzi Wind Power Project

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality was checked by the VVB, and it reports no material findings or corrective actions, which supports the project’s core integrity. However, the baseline is only described as project-based, the last reassessment date is not found, and leakage is marked as not addressed in the newer report, which weakens confidence in the emissions accounting. No buffer pool information or reversal events are stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the verification report identifies the verifier, the monitoring period, and a verified emissions figure of 273,926 tCO2e. At the same time, the claimed emissions total is not stated, the evidence set is thin, and the extraction confidence is low, which limits how fully the project can be traced from the available documents. The registry status is clear, but the documentation is not complete enough for a high score.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. The project is a wind power activity under ACM0002 and is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces some market-claim risk, but the leakage treatment is weak and the baseline is not well documented. The large gap between the newer verified emissions figure and the older figure in the contradictions list raises over-crediting and reliability concerns.

Documentation

The documentation set includes a recent verification report and identifies the VVB, which is a positive sign. But the extraction confidence is low, only one evidence document is clearly listed, and several important items such as additionality test type, leakage deduction, buffer pool, and baseline reassessment are not found in the available record. The presence of newer safeguards statements is helpful, but the file remains incomplete.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality VCS wind project with a credible additionality signal but meaningful documentation and accounting weaknesses. I privileged the newer 2022 verification report over older material because it is more recent and appears to be the authoritative verification source; that means I treated leakage as not addressed and used the newer verified emissions figure of 273,926 tCO2e. The contradictions matter: the older document reportedly said leakage was negligible, safeguards were absent, and verified emissions were 48,436 tCO2e, while the newer record says safeguards are present and verified emissions are much higher, so reliability is reduced and the scores are pulled down accordingly.