Guizhou Wenjiaba CMM Power Generation Project

Integrity

The verification report dated 2022-09-22 confirms additionality through an investment test and says additionality was verified by Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd. No material findings or corrective actions were reported, which is positive, but leakage is not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated. Baseline method is described as project-based, yet baseline reassessment timing is not found in the available documents.

Transparency

The project has a named VVB and a defined monitoring period from 2021-08-26 to 2022-05-25, and the verification report reports 60,032 verified ERs. However, the extracted record has low extraction confidence, and the comparison between claimed and verified ERs cannot be assessed because claimed ERs are not stated. Public-facing completeness is therefore only moderate.

Claim Safety

The project type is methane capture under ACM0008, which supports a plausible emissions-reduction case, but the leakage treatment is weak because the verification report says leakage is not addressed. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out. The contradiction on leakage, where an earlier document reportedly quantified it but the later verification report says it is not addressed, further weakens claim safety.

Documentation

The file set includes a verification report with a date, monitoring period, crediting period, and VVB identity, and it reports no material findings or corrective actions. Still, the extraction confidence is low, only one evidence document is clearly identified, and several key fields such as baseline reassessment, leakage deduction, and usage monitoring are missing. That leaves the documentation package incomplete for a high-confidence assessment.

Overall

The project looks operationally credible because additionality was verified and the verification report found no material issues, but the evidence package is incomplete and several core MRV items are missing. I privileged the 2022-09-22 verification report over earlier contradictory entries because it is the later and more authoritative assurance document, but I still discounted the score because the record contains contradictions on leakage treatment, safeguards, and verified ER totals. The verified ER figure of 60,032 is therefore treated as the best available value, but the inconsistency with the earlier 49,822 figure and the low extraction confidence reduce reliability.