Hebei Shirenshan Wind Power Project

Integrity

The extracted record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB, which supports additionality robustness for a grid-connected wind project. The baseline is described as project-specific, and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in available documents, which weakens confidence over a long crediting period (2008-02-18 to 2018-02-17). Leakage is explicitly not addressed in the extracted record and no leakage deduction is stated, creating an integrity gap even if leakage is likely low for wind.

Transparency

The monitoring report (dated 2022-08-06) provides a clearly bounded monitoring period (2012-05-01 to 2018-02-17) and reports verified ERs of 614,637 tCO₂e, which supports traceability. The VVB is identified as China Classification Society Certification Co., Ltd., improving audit transparency. However, total ERs claimed are not found in the extracted record, reducing the ability to reconcile claimed versus verified outcomes.

Claim Safety

The project applies ACM0002 (version 06), a widely used methodology for grid-connected renewable electricity, which generally reduces methodological ambiguity. That said, the extracted record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so downstream claims (e.g., CORSIA-aligned or CCP-aligned) cannot be safely inferred. In addition, leakage is not addressed in the extracted record, which increases perceived over-crediting/quality risk for buyers even if practical leakage is minimal.

Documentation

The evidence set includes key document types (validation report, monitoring report, issuance) and the minimum extraction confidence is high, indicating the underlying documents were readable and usable. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is consistent with a clean assurance outcome. Some important fields remain missing (e.g., total ERs claimed, leakage deduction), and one evidence document is categorized as unknown, preventing a higher documentation score.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so scores are not discounted for internal inconsistencies. The overall score balances solid third-party assurance signals (named VVB, verified ERs, no reported findings) against quality gaps that matter for credit integrity and buyer risk (project-specific baseline with no reassessment timing stated, and leakage not addressed). If documentation were to fall below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0—neither gate is triggered by these scores.