GS1340 Efficient cookstoves in Burkina Faso – VPA-12 - tiipaalga F3PA cookstoves in Kourwéogo

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through VVB review, which is a meaningful positive for integrity. However, permanence is weakly evidenced because reversal events are marked as not addressed and no buffer pool is stated, while leakage treatment and usage assumptions vary across versions in the contradiction log. The project also uses a project baseline, but the last reassessment date is not found in the extracted record.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the report names Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., gives the 2022 monitoring period, and reports 169,085 verified credits. Still, the extracted record has low extraction confidence, only one evidence document is listed, and the verification report includes several CARs and CLs about inconsistent dates, duplicated GPS entries, and missing comparisons to prior monitoring periods. That combination limits confidence in the completeness of public MRV disclosure.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by contradictions in the record, especially the different usage rates, leakage treatment, and crediting period dates across documents. I privileged the 2025 verification report for the latest values because it is the most recent and appears to reflect the final reviewed position, but the presence of earlier conflicting figures still raises over-crediting risk. The project’s quantified leakage treatment helps, yet the lack of clear CORSIA or CCP status leaves some dual-claim uncertainty.

Documentation

Documentation quality is mixed: the record includes a verification report, methodology version, verifier name, and a list of corrective actions that were addressed. On the other hand, min extraction confidence is low, evidence_docs contains only an unknown entry, and several review comments indicate that the reporting package needed revisions. The recency of the monitoring period is good, but the overall documentary completeness remains limited.

Overall

I privileged the 2025 verification report where it conflicts with older records because it is the most recent and appears to be the final verification output, but the contradictions still reduce reliability. In particular, the record shows conflicting values for leakage treatment, usage rates, and crediting period, and these discrepancies are material to issuance confidence. Because documentation quality is only moderate and integrity is not strong enough to trigger the hard cap, the overall score remains mid-range rather than high.