Recycling Roadways for Carbon Emission Reductions - Midstate Reclamation and Trucking

Integrity

The monitoring report confirms additionality was verified by SustainCert using a combined test, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. However, leakage is only described as deemed negligible, with no quantified deduction, and reversal handling is not addressed in the extracted record. No material findings were reported, but the presence of multiple corrective and clarification requests weakens confidence in the robustness of the integrity case.

Transparency

Transparency is limited by missing or unstated MRV details. The monitoring period is clearly identified and the VVB is named, but the extracted record does not provide total ERs claimed versus verified, the usage monitoring method, or any quantified leakage deduction. The absence of these figures makes it harder to independently assess issuance quality.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is middling because the project has a specific methodology and a project baseline, but several key over-crediting checks are unavailable. There is no verified usage-rate information, no leakage deduction, and no CORSIA or CCP status in the extracted record. That leaves residual uncertainty about whether the credited reductions are conservative enough for strong external claims.

Documentation

The documentation base is broader than a single file, with 16 documents used and a recent monitoring report dated 2025-10-23. Even so, extraction confidence is only medium, and the report records 3 Corrective Action Requests plus 8 Clarification Requests. The crediting period is long and current, but the missing buffer pool, reversal detail, and several MRV fields indicate incomplete documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the 2025-10-23 monitoring report where it was more specific, but I also noted the contradiction on leakage treatment: one extracted value says leakage was deemed negligible, while another says it was not addressed. I also treated reversal risk conservatively because one record says reversal events were not addressed, while another older record says none were reported; the more recent and more cautionary wording was given priority. Because the file has a decent evidence base but important gaps and some reliability issues, the overall score stays in the mid range rather than high.