Leeds Production Facility

Integrity

The verification report (2025-12-19) confirms additionality using an investment test and reports no material findings, which supports basic additionality credibility. However, leakage is explicitly noted as not addressed in the extracted record, and no leakage deduction is provided, weakening integrity for a material-based removal pathway. The baseline is described as project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not found in the extracted record, increasing baseline robustness uncertainty. Permanence risk appears managed only partially: no reversals are reported, but there is no buffer pool contribution (0%), so the project relies on other controls not evidenced here.

Transparency

The extracted record provides a named VVB (350Solutions) and a clear monitoring period (2025-04-01 to 2025-06-30), which supports traceability. Transparency is reduced because the total removals claimed are not found in the extracted record, and there is a major inconsistency in the verified removals across documents. The verification report (2025-12-19) also required corrective actions, indicating that the underlying quantification and disclosures needed improvement. Registry completeness is mixed: a registry code is provided (PUR-625222), but supporting public document identifiers are not available beyond “unknown.”

Claim Safety

The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of high-impact aviation claims. Claim safety is nonetheless weakened by the contradiction in verified removals (1,706 vs 14,873) across documents, which creates a clear over-crediting/over-claiming risk until reconciled. The verification report (2025-12-19) required correction of the fossil CO2 subtraction in the CORC calculation file, directly indicating a risk that removals were miscalculated prior to correction. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity claim frameworks.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate: the extracted record indicates 17 documents were used and includes a verification report dated 2025-12-19, suggesting recent third-party review. However, the evidence document list is not identifiable (listed as “unknown”), limiting auditability for an external reviewer. Several key fields (e.g., claimed removals, leakage deduction, baseline reassessment timing, usage monitoring method) are not found in the extracted record, indicating gaps. Extraction confidence is medium, so some caution is warranted in relying on the completeness of extracted details.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range because additionality is VVB-confirmed and no reversals are reported, but leakage and baseline robustness are not evidenced and quantification required correction. Contradictions materially reduce confidence: for verified removals, I privilege the 1,706 figure because it aligns with the most recent verification report date in the extracted record (2025-12-19) and is therefore likely the latest verified outcome; the 14,873 figure (dated 2024-12-27) is treated as superseded or referring to a different scope/period. For the crediting period contradiction, I privilege 2023-10-01 to 2024-09-30 because it is associated with the later document date (2024-12-27) and is more likely the updated crediting window; the earlier 2022-10-01 to 2023-09-30 is treated as prior. For safeguards, I privilege the later-dated indication that safeguards were mentioned (2025-06-25) over the earlier (2025-04-01), but the inconsistency still lowers confidence and scores.