Gas Buster
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any reversal/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record (no documents).
inferred No contradictions were detected, but this provides little assurance given the absence of underlying sources.
Transparency
missing No VVB identity, monitoring period, or verification/issuance figures were found in the extracted record.
missing Registry-relevant completeness (e.g., CORSIA/CCP status, MRV methods) cannot be assessed without documents.
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated because baseline and leakage assumptions are not available in the extracted record.
inferred CORSIA/CCP eligibility and double-claim controls were not found in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for end-user claims.
Documentation
missing Zero documents were captured/used in extraction, leaving the assessment evidence-free.
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues that further undermine reliability.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No official project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), so additionality testing, baseline methodology, leakage treatment, and any permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool or reversal procedures) are not stated in available documents. With these core integrity elements missing, the project cannot be assessed for robustness and is scored very low by default. The low extraction confidence further increases the chance that key integrity details were not reliably captured.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because the extracted record contains no evidence documents and therefore no verifiable information on the VVB, monitoring period, MRV approach, or any comparison of claimed versus verified emission reductions. Registry completeness items such as CORSIA eligibility are also not stated in available documents. Given documentation below 3.0, a transparency cap may apply under the stated gate rules (applied after scoring).
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak because there is no extracted evidence on baseline setting, leakage justification/deductions, or verification outcomes—key determinants of over-crediting risk. CORSIA/CCP status is not stated in available documents, so buyers cannot confidently make higher-integrity claims tied to those frameworks. The score reflects uncertainty and the inability to substantiate claims rather than a confirmed deficiency in project performance.
Documentation
Documentation quality is extremely poor in the extracted record: no evidence documents were captured and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable. Without any listed reports (PDD, validation/verification, monitoring), independence, recency, and corrective actions cannot be evaluated. This drives a very low documentation score and reduces confidence in all other dimensions.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is not meaningful assurance because there are also no underlying documents to cross-check. As a result, the overall score is driven by evidence gaps across all dimensions and the low extraction confidence. Note that the gate rule for documentation below 3.0 may cap transparency after scoring (not pre-applied here).
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring performance) 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 evidence rather than evidence of poor practice.
Project Description
Why we chose this project: “Non-CO2 gases account for nearly half of all global warming from human activity since 1970. Once non-CO2 gases are released into the atmosphere, they cannot be removed through nature-based solutions or other technologies. The gases released from refrigeration equipment or fire extinguishers are often overlooked and accelerate climate change,
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 40,402 | 0 | 40,402 | |
| Total | 40,402 | 0 | 40,402 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the full set of official documents (PDD, validation/verification reports, monitoring reports, and registry issuance/retirement records) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV can be substantiated.
- Improve document legibility/extraction quality (higher-confidence OCR or source PDFs) and include explicit statements on CORSIA/CCP status and any corrective actions/material findings.
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
Permanence provisions not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
CORSIA/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 →