IND/REC/SLR/VER/03012026/00022
OG-6958c603
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Baseline approach, additionality assessment, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record (no documents available)
inferred Project is labeled renewable energy avoidance, but without documents the baseline and grid emission factor assumptions cannot be checked
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed emission reductions were found in the extracted record
missing Registry/documentation completeness is effectively absent because no evidence documents were provided
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline method, leakage justification, and any usage/operational monitoring evidence were not found
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, so double-claim/eligibility risk cannot be evaluated
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used and no evidence documents were listed in the extracted record
missing Extraction confidence is low, reducing reliability even if some information exists outside the extracted record
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No validation/verification, monitoring, or PDD content was available in the extracted record (0 documents), so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and any material findings/corrective actions cannot be confirmed. Although the project is described as renewable energy avoidance, the absence of baseline and grid factor documentation prevents assessing whether credited reductions are conservative. Given these evidence gaps, integrity is scored very low.
Transparency
The extracted record provides no public-facing MRV details: no VVB name, no monitoring period, and no claimed-versus-verified emission reduction figures. With no evidence documents listed, there is no way to cross-check registry completeness or the quality of monitoring and verification. Transparency is therefore very weak.
Claim Safety
Without baseline method, leakage justification, or any verified monitoring outputs in the extracted record, the risk of overstated credits cannot be ruled out and must be treated as elevated. Eligibility signals that often reduce greenwashing risk (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) were not found in the extracted record, so double-claim/market-eligibility risk cannot be screened. Claim safety is scored low due to the inability to substantiate key assertions.
Documentation
No evidence documents were captured (0 documents used), and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable. This combination suggests both severe incompleteness and reliability concerns in the extracted record. Documentation is scored near the floor.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any documents and low extraction confidence dominate the assessment and materially reduce confidence in all other dimensions. Because documentation is below 3.0, a transparency cap would apply under the stated gate rules (post-scoring). Overall quality is therefore assessed as very low until primary documents (PDD, monitoring and verification reports) are available for review.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV results) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default.
Project Description
Verify on BlockChain IND/REC/SLR/VER/03012026/00022 Chhattisgarh, India Total Credits - 500 | Transferable Renewable Energy Credits OG Score - 88 This Project is not Listed Inquire
Red Flags
- No project documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, leakage, or monitoring results
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, increasing the risk of missing or misread critical information
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide and extract the core VCS documents (PDD, validation report, latest monitoring report, and verification report) so baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV results can be assessed
- Improve document readability/extraction quality (higher-confidence OCR) and include registry fields (VVB name, monitoring period, claimed vs verified ERs, CORSIA/CCP status) to enable cross-checks and reduce claim risk
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
No additionality assessment found
Avoidance type but permanence provisions not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
No safeguards evidence found
CORSIA/CCP status not evidenced
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →