Poechos I Project

Integrity

The validation record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB (DET NORSKE VERITAS) and the project uses ACM0002, which is a standard approach for grid-connected renewable electricity. However, leakage is not robustly handled: the validation report (2005-07-29) indicates leakage was not addressed, and no leakage deduction percentage is found in the extracted record. Baseline robustness is harder to judge because the grid emission factor and the date of any baseline reassessment are not found in the extracted record.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2010-04-15) clearly states the monitoring period (2009-04-01—2010-03-31) and identifies the VVB as DET NORSKE VERITAS. Still, the extracted record does not include total emission reductions claimed or verified for that period, nor the grid emission factor used, limiting independent reproducibility. The registry is listed as CDM while the user states Gold Standard, which also complicates traceability in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

Because total ERs (claimed and verified) and the grid emission factor are not found in the extracted record, there is elevated uncertainty about over-crediting risk for this monitoring period. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so downstream claim compatibility cannot be confirmed. The safeguards picture is weak (the extracted record indicates no FPIC and no grievance mechanism), which increases reputational/greenwashing risk even for an avoidance renewable project.

Documentation

The extracted record draws on multiple document types (monitoring report, PDD, validation report, stakeholder consultation) and indicates 14 documents were used, supporting moderate completeness. Minimum extraction confidence is medium, suggesting the documents were readable enough but not pristine. The presence of corrective and clarification requests (including submission of a Peru Letter of Approval in English and multiple CARs/CLRs) indicates that key compliance evidence was initially incomplete or unclear.

Overall

Key contradictions reduce confidence: (1) Additionality is described as an investment test in the PDD (2004-11) but as a barrier analysis in the validation report (2005-07-29); the validation report is privileged because it reflects the VVB’s assessed basis for approval, but the inconsistency still lowers reliability. (2) Safeguards are marked as mentioned in the monitoring report (2010-04-15) but not in the validation report; the more recent monitoring report is privileged for whether safeguards were later discussed, but the lack of early documentation weakens assurance. (3) Leakage is "not addressed" in the validation report (2005-07-29) but "deemed negligible" in a later PDD (2012-04-11); the validation report is privileged for what was actually validated for the crediting decision, so leakage remains a material uncertainty and scores are adjusted downward accordingly. Note: gate rules may cap scores post-processing if documentation or integrity fall below thresholds.