IDN/REC/GTL/GS/21072025/00017

Integrity

No project documents were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions were not stated in available documents. Because this is an avoidance renewable energy project, integrity depends heavily on baseline/grid assumptions and verified monitoring results, none of which were found. With these evidence gaps, integrity is scored very low by default.

Transparency

The extracted record includes no evidence documents and does not provide a VVB name, monitoring period, or any comparison of claimed versus verified emission reductions. With low extraction confidence and no documents, MRV quality and public transparency cannot be evaluated. This warrants a very low transparency score.

Claim Safety

No information was found on CORSIA eligibility, CCP status, baseline setting, leakage justification, or any verified ER quantities, all of which are central to assessing over-crediting and marketing-claim risk. Given the complete absence of substantiating documentation, the project’s claims should be treated as high risk until evidence is provided.

Documentation

The extracted record shows 0 documents used and low extraction confidence, indicating severe incompleteness and potential unreadable sources. Without validation/verification/monitoring reports in the record, independence, recency, and corrective actions cannot be assessed. Documentation is therefore scored near the floor.

Overall

There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is because no underlying documents were captured to compare. The overall score is driven by the extreme evidence gap (0 documents) and low extraction confidence, which prevent substantiating any core quality attributes. Note: per gate rules, the very low documentation score would cap transparency post-scoring.