Gunaydin WPP

Integrity

The project has a positive additionality signal because the monitoring record says an investment test was used and that additionality was confirmed by the VVB, Re Carbon Ltd. The baseline is project-based and the report states a leakage deduction of 0% with leakage deemed negligible, which is reasonable for wind. However, the verification history includes many corrective actions and clarifications, and the record shows a reversal-related stakeholder concern about grazing land, even though no actual reversal events are reported.

Transparency

The monitoring report is recent and gives a quantified verified emissions reduction of 66,623 tCO2e for 2022-08-01 to 2024-10-15, which helps transparency. At the same time, low extraction confidence and the large number of unresolved or repeatedly corrected monitoring items weaken the clarity of the public record. Several monitoring elements were not fully documented in the extracted facts, including usage monitoring details and FNRB-related information.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the wind project type, the negligible leakage treatment, and the absence of reported reversals. Still, the record does not clearly state CORSIA eligibility, and CCP status is only noted as not mentioned, so the project cannot be treated as clearly excluded from dual-claim channels. The contradiction in verified emissions figures also raises over-crediting risk because the newer report’s 66,623 tCO2e differs from the older 59,792 tCO2e figure.

Documentation

Documentation quality is mixed: there is a recent monitoring report, a named verifier, and many extracted findings, but the extraction confidence is low. The report also contains a long list of corrective actions and clarifications, including meter calibration, supporting evidence, and monitoring-table issues. The crediting period is recent in the newer record, but the contradictory older period indicates that the documentation trail is not fully clean.

Overall

I privileged the newer monitoring report dated 2025-06-12 for the verified emissions figure and crediting period because it is more recent and appears to be the latest official record, but I still penalized the score because the older figures remain in the extracted record and create reliability concerns. The contradiction on the credited period is material: the newer report shows 2019-12-01 to 2026-11-30, while an older record shows 2012-12-01 to 2019-11-30, so the project history is not fully consistent. Likewise, the verified emissions reduction differs between 66,623 tCO2e and 59,792 tCO2e, which lowers confidence in the accounting and claim safety.