⚠
This rating is archived — the project is no longer listed or its registry
data has changed. This is the last published analysis (2026-07-31).
5.8/ 10
Integrity
6.5
Transparency
5.0
Claim Safety
5.0
Documentation
7.0
Score Breakdown
integrity
transparency
claim_safety
documentation
Detailed Analysis
▼
Integrity
Transparency
Claim Safety
Documentation
Overall
Audit Analysis
The project demonstrates robust additionality verification and strong social safeguards, but suffers from significant data reliability issues. Identical claimed and verified emission figures across mismatched timeframes, combined with unaddressed baseline reassessment gaps and document contradictions, raise over-crediting concerns that lower the overall quality rating.
Project Description
Red Flags
⚠Identical claimed and verified emission reduction figures despite covering different reporting periods
⚠Crediting period discrepancy between verification and monitoring reports
⚠Multiple data consistency errors (meter serial numbers, mismatched values) requiring corrective actions during verification
Credit Vintages
No issuances recorded on the registry.
What would improve this score
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
Additionality
VVB-confirmed combined test
Permanence
Buffer pool unspecified
Leakage
Quantified with zero deduction
Baseline
Project-specific, reassessment missing
Safeguards
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
Double-claim
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Source: CarbonMeld — independent carbon credit market intelligence. Quality scores and document-based audits for 15,000+ projects: carbonmeld.com