GROUPED AGROFORESTRY PROJECT IN VARIOUS STATES OF INDIA

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a barrier test and says the VVB, Carbon Check, validated it. A 20% buffer pool is a positive permanence feature, but reversal events are still marked as not addressed, which is a meaningful weakness for an agroforestry project with long-term storage risk. Leakage is described as quantified in the latest record, but the contradiction with an earlier document that treated it as merely negligible reduces confidence in the robustness of the accounting.

Transparency

The project has some transparency strengths because the verification report names the VVB and gives a clear monitoring period from 2019-07-01 to 2025-04-01. However, the extracted record does not state total claimed or verified emission reductions, and usage monitoring is not described. Baseline reassessment timing is also not found, which limits the ability to judge MRV completeness.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because the project uses a project baseline rather than a more conservative standardized or jurisdictional baseline, and the leakage treatment is not fully stable across documents. The record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted facts alone. The absence of verified emission reduction figures also leaves some over-crediting uncertainty.

Documentation

Documentation quality is limited by low extraction confidence and the fact that only one evidence document is listed in the extracted record. On the positive side, the verification report is recent, names the VVB, and reports no material findings or corrective actions. Still, several important fields are not found in the available documents, including leakage percentage, usage monitoring method, and verified emission totals.

Overall

The main contradiction concerns leakage: the latest record says leakage was quantified, while an earlier document said it was deemed negligible. I privileged the more recent verification report dated 2026-03-06 because it is the newest and likely reflects the final audited position, but the inconsistency still lowers reliability. A second contradiction concerns additionality, where the latest record says a barrier test was used while an earlier document referred to a combined test; I again privileged the more recent verification report, but the mismatch suggests the documentation trail is not fully clean. Under the stated gate rules, the documentation score is low enough to pressure transparency, and the integrity score remains above the hard cap threshold.