MRMPL Wind Power Project

Integrity

The verification report identifies additionality through an investment test and says there were no material findings, which supports the project’s core integrity. However, the extracted record does not clearly state a leakage deduction, buffer pool contribution, or baseline reassessment date, so several permanence and baseline controls remain weakly evidenced. The project is an avoidance wind project, so reversal risk is inherently lower than for removals, but the documentation gaps still matter.

Transparency

The monitoring period, VVB name, and verified emission reductions are available, which helps basic traceability. At the same time, key MRV details are missing from the extracted record, including the usage monitoring method and any baseline reassessment timing. The registry status is withdrawn, which does not itself prove poor transparency, but it does reduce confidence in the current public claim environment.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the contradictions in the extracted record, especially the different verified emission reduction totals and different crediting-period dates across documents. I privileged the later 2022 figures because they appear to come from the more recent verification material, but the presence of conflicting earlier values still raises over-crediting and record-consistency concerns. The project is not shown to be CORSIA-eligible or CCP-approved in the extracted record, so there is no strong external quality endorsement to offset those issues.

Documentation

The record draws on 18 documents and the extraction confidence is medium, which is acceptable but not strong. Still, the verification material required corrective actions for mismatched crediting-period dates and methodology/tool versions, indicating documentation inconsistency. I privileged the more recent 2022 values over older 2018/2010 values because they are later and appear tied to the latest verification cycle, but the unresolved contradictions lower confidence overall.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality record with some real strengths but notable reliability concerns. I privileged the later 2022 verification figures for emission reductions and crediting period because they are more recent and appear to reflect the latest verification cycle, but I still penalized the score because the extracted record explicitly contains contradictions on those same fields. The withdrawn registry status, required corrective actions, and missing leakage/baseline detail keep the project below a strong-confidence rating.