Selale HEPP

Integrity

The verification report from Re Carbon Ltd. confirms additionality through an investment test and reports no material findings or corrective actions required. The project also shows a quantified leakage deduction of 0%, but permanence is weaker because reversal events are not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is available in the extracted record.

Transparency

The verification report provides the VVB name, monitoring period, and claimed avoided emissions of 17,567 tCO2e for the period 2023-03-18 to 2024-07-31. Transparency is limited because the verified ER total is not stated, the usage monitoring method is not found, and the extraction confidence is low, which suggests at least one key document was difficult to read.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the project-based baseline and the stated leakage deduction of 0%, both of which are clearer than an unquantified approach. That said, the record contains a contradiction on leakage justification, and the crediting period contradiction creates uncertainty about whether the project timeline was consistently reported across documents.

Documentation

Documentation is only moderate because 16 documents were used and the verification report is recent, dated 2025-06-11. However, the evidence list is not specific, extraction confidence is low, and several important items such as buffer pool coverage, usage monitoring, and verified ER totals are not stated in available documents.

Overall

I privileged the more recent verification report dated 2025-06-11 for additionality, leakage, and reversal-related fields because it is the latest and most specific source in the extracted record. I also note the contradictions explicitly: additionality test type differs from an older document, leakage justification conflicts with another same-date extraction, reversal reporting differs from a 2024 document, and the crediting period differs from an earlier version; these inconsistencies reduce reliability and pull the score down. Because documentation is weak and key monitoring details are missing, transparency is capped in practice by the low documentation quality, and the overall score remains mid-range rather than strong.