Killik Wind Power Plant

Integrity

The project benefits from a VVB-confirmed additionality assessment, a project baseline under ACM0002, and a baseline reassessment in 2020, which are supportive signals. Integrity is weakened by the large number of corrective and clarification requests in the verification material and by contradictions on the additionality test type and leakage treatment, which reduce confidence in the robustness of the underlying assessment.

Transparency

Transparency is only moderate because the monitoring period, verifier name, and verified reductions are stated, but the record does not provide the total claimed reductions or a usage monitoring method. The low extraction confidence also suggests at least one key document was difficult to read, so the documentation trail is not fully reliable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the project being marked CORSIA-eligible, the leakage deduction being 0% with a negligible justification, and no reported reversal events. That said, CCP status is not mentioned, and the contradiction log shows earlier documents treated leakage as not addressed and gave a different crediting period, which raises over-crediting and claims-risk concerns.

Documentation

The file draws on 18 documents and includes a verification report where corrective actions were closed before issuance, which is a positive sign. Still, the extraction confidence is low, the evidence list is not specific, and several important items are missing or only partially stated, so the documentation quality is limited.

Overall

I privileged the most recent and more specific statements where possible: the 2024 verification-era information for reversals and leakage, and the later combined additionality test over the older investment-test reference. The contradictions matter materially: additionality test type differs across documents, leakage moved from not addressed to negligible, reversals moved from not addressed to none reported, and the crediting period differs between sources; these issues lower reliability and keep the overall score in the mid range. Because documentation quality is weak and the record contains multiple unresolved discrepancies, the project should be treated cautiously even though the core wind-project attributes are generally favorable.