Vai al contenuto principale
avoidance India Total Credits Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

IND/REC/SLR/VER/03012026/00022

OG-6958c603

1.5 / 10
Integrity
2.2
Transparency
0.5
Claim Safety
2.0
Documentation
0.8

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

Additionality

No additionality assessment found

Permanence

Avoidance type but permanence provisions not evidenced

Leakage

No leakage treatment found

Baseline

Baseline method not found

Safeguards

No safeguards evidence found

Double-claim

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
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-02 General Methodology v2.0 Solo marketplace

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