Setka Gosheva Farm

Integrity

The extracted record does not include an additionality test, any confirmation by a VVB, or a stated baseline method, so additionality and baseline validity cannot be assessed from the available evidence. Leakage is not addressed (no deduction percentage and no justification found), and permanence controls such as a buffer pool or reversal reporting are also not stated in available documents. While the record lists no material findings or corrective actions, the absence of verification context limits the value of that signal.

Transparency

The extracted record lacks basic MRV transparency items: no monitoring period, no usage monitoring method, and no total claimed or verified emission reductions are provided. The VVB name is not stated, and registry details are not found, making it difficult to trace issuance/retirement or confirm independent assurance. Only a single 2021 document reference is available, and it is categorized as an unknown document type.

Claim Safety

Because the baseline method, leakage treatment, and monitoring approach are not found in the extracted record, the risk of over-crediting cannot be evaluated and claims are not well-supported. The record provides neither total claimed nor total verified emission reductions, preventing reconciliation of what is marketed versus what is assured. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility are not stated, increasing uncertainty around eligibility-related claims and potential double-claim risk management.

Documentation

Documentation completeness is very weak: only one evidence document is listed (an unknown document type) with a 2021 date and low extraction confidence. Key fields typically present in project documentation (methodology/version, crediting period, monitoring period, VVB identity, registry code linkage, and quantified results) are not found in the extracted record. The low extraction confidence materially reduces confidence that the available document set is readable and complete.

Overall

There are no contradictions flagged in the extracted record, so no cross-document reconciliation was possible. However, the absence of core carbon-accounting and assurance information across the single low-confidence document reference drives a very low overall score. Note: per the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.