*Proyecto Mirador enhanced distribution of efficient woodstoves

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a combined test and states that DNV Climate Change Services AS verified it, which supports the project’s core environmental claim. On the other hand, the baseline method is project-specific and was last reassessed in 2010, and reversal events are not clearly addressed in the extracted record. No buffer pool percentage is available, so permanence protection cannot be credited strongly.

Transparency

The monitoring period is stated and the VVB is identified, which helps traceability. Still, the extracted record does not provide claimed versus verified ERR totals, and the monitoring and verification documents disagree on several operational details. That weakens confidence in the public MRV trail even though some core information is present.

Claim Safety

Leakage was quantified with a 2% deduction, which is a positive sign for over-crediting control. However, the project relies on a project baseline rather than a recent standardized reassessment, and the record contains conflicting values for FNRB, usage monitoring, leakage treatment, reversal handling, and the crediting period. Because the project is marked CORSIA-eligible and CCP status is not mentioned, dual-claim risk is not eliminated.

Documentation

The extracted record draws on multiple official documents, including a verification report, a monitoring report, and a PDD, with 10 documents used overall. Medium extraction confidence is acceptable but not ideal, and the verification report lists many material findings. The documentation is therefore usable but not especially clean or complete.

Overall

The project is moderately credible but not high confidence because the evidence base contains several contradictions that affect leakage, FNRB, usage monitoring, reversal handling, and the crediting period. Where conflicts exist, I privileged the more recent verification report for leakage, FNRB, and usage monitoring because it is later than the older monitoring or verification entries, but that choice still leaves reliability concerns. The project’s additionality and leakage treatment are positive, yet the lack of clear permanence safeguards and the CORSIA-eligible status keep claim safety only mid-range.