IND/REC/WND/VER/18072025/00006
OG-687a24ea
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing No extracted evidence on additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, or verification findings from official documents.
inferred Project is labeled as renewable energy avoidance, but project-type alone is insufficient to judge additionality or baseline validity.
Transparency
missing No monitoring/verification details (periods, VVB, ERR checks) were found in the extracted record.
missing Registry/documentation completeness cannot be confirmed because no evidence documents were captured.
Claim Safety
missing No extracted evidence on over-crediting controls (baseline method, grid factors, leakage justification) or eligibility statuses (CCP/CORSIA).
inferred Absence of contradictions helps, but it is outweighed by the lack of underlying data.
Documentation
missing Zero documents listed as evidence and zero documents used for extraction.
missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, reducing reliability of any missing/partial fields.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents were captured in the extracted record (no evidence documents; 0 documents used), so additionality testing, baseline methodology, leakage treatment, and any verification findings are not stated in available documents. Because these are core integrity elements, the score is heavily penalized. The project being categorized as renewable energy avoidance does not substitute for documented additionality and baseline validity.
Transparency
Transparency is very weak because the extracted record contains no monitoring or verification information (no VVB name, monitoring period, or cross-check of claimed vs verified emission reductions). With no documents available, it is not possible to confirm MRV procedures or registry completeness beyond the provided registry code. Low extraction confidence further increases uncertainty that key disclosures were missed.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is low due to the absence of extracted evidence on baseline setting, grid emission factors, leakage justification, or any checks against over-crediting. Eligibility indicators relevant to marketing claims (such as CCP status or CORSIA eligibility) are not stated in available documents. With no underlying documentation, the risk of unsupported claims remains high.
Documentation
Documentation quality is extremely poor: the extracted record lists no evidence documents and indicates 0 documents used. The minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable, which undermines confidence in completeness. This warrants a very low documentation score.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions, but this does not improve confidence because the extracted record contains no underlying documents to compare. Given the complete evidence gap (0 documents used) and low extraction confidence, all dimension scores are constrained by missing information rather than demonstrated performance. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project-specific information from official documents, and the minimum extraction confidence is low. With no evidence on baseline setting, additionality, monitoring, leakage, or verification outcomes, the project cannot be assessed as high-quality on any dimension.
Project Description
Verify on BlockChain IND/REC/WND/VER/18072025/00006 Tamil Nadu, India Listed Credits - 1000 | Total Credits - 2000 | Partially | Transferable | More credits ? Renewable Energy Credits OG Score - 69 $ 5.52 per Credits Bid
Red Flags
- No official documents were successfully used in extraction (0 documents), creating a major evidence gap across baseline, additionality, MRV, and findings.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, increasing the risk of missing or misinterpreted information.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide and extract the PDD, monitoring report(s), and verification report(s) so baseline method, additionality test, leakage treatment, and verified ERs can be assessed.
- Improve document readability/scan quality (to raise extraction confidence) and include explicit statements on VVB, monitoring period, material findings/corrective actions, and any CCP/CORSIA eligibility.
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 not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not documented
CCP/CORSIA status not stated
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 →