Inner Mongolia Ximeng Zheligentu Wind Farm Phase I Project

Integrity

The project applies ACM0002 (version 20.0) and the extracted record indicates additionality was demonstrated via an investment test and confirmed by the VVB (validation/verification documentation). Baseline setting is project-specific, and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record, which weakens confidence in baseline continued validity over a long crediting period. Leakage is flagged as not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated, leaving a key integrity control unsubstantiated. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is positive but does not resolve the missing leakage/baseline details.

Transparency

The monitoring report dated 2021-05-02 specifies a monitoring period from 2018-07-21 to 2020-12-20, and the extracted record shows claimed and verified ERs both at 173,215 tCO2e for that period. The VVB is identified as Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd, supporting audit traceability. However, the extracted contradictions show major inconsistencies in ER totals and other key descriptors across documents, reducing the clarity of what numbers apply to which period and decision. Public-facing completeness is therefore mixed: many fields are present, but internal consistency is weak.

Claim Safety

The extracted record states the project is not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of dual-channel aviation claims. Nonetheless, over-crediting risk is elevated by contradictions in verified ERs (including a much higher figure in a 2020 validation report) and by the absence of a stated leakage deduction or justification. The baseline is project-specific and baseline reassessment timing is not stated, which can increase the risk that credited reductions diverge from an updated grid/baseline reality over time. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving an additional uncertainty for high-integrity claim positioning.

Documentation

The evidence set includes a PDD, monitoring report(s), validation report(s), and issuance records, with 18 documents used and high extraction confidence, which supports a solid documentation score. The monitoring report is relatively recent (2021-05-02) compared with the monitoring period end (2020-12-20), suggesting reasonable recency. However, safeguards-related fields (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, and whether safeguards are mentioned) conflict between older (2011) and newer (2020–2021) monitoring reports, indicating inconsistent documentation over time. These inconsistencies reduce confidence that the social safeguard narrative is consistently evidenced across the project history.

Overall

Key contradictions materially affect confidence: (1) ER quantities conflict across documents (claimed 173,215 vs 103,878 in two validation reports; verified 173,215 vs 531,211 in two validation reports). For scoring, the 173,215 figure was privileged because it matches the extracted monitoring report (2021-05-02) and the extracted record’s claimed and verified values align, whereas the higher 531,211 appears inconsistent with the extracted current claimed/verified pair and may refer to a different period or aggregation not clearly reconciled here. (2) Safeguards, FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing are false in a 2011 monitoring report but true in later monitoring reports; the more recent monitoring reports were privileged, but the inconsistency still lowers transparency/documentation. (3) Crediting period start date conflicts (2009 vs 2019); the monitoring report’s 2009–2029 was privileged because it aligns with a typical 20-year crediting period, but the discrepancy raises eligibility-boundary concerns and reduces integrity/claim safety.