The Dirt on Dirt
CE-the-dirt-on-dirt-hbo
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record because no documents were available.
inferred Soil carbon removals typically have non-trivial reversal risk, but buffer pool, reversal monitoring, and corrective actions are not evidenced here.
Transparency
missing No VVB, monitoring period, or quantified MRV outputs were found in the extracted record due to missing documentation.
missing Registry completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were provided.
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated (no baseline method, no leakage justification, no verified vs claimed removals) because no documents were available.
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, leaving double-claim/eligibility risk unresolved.
Documentation
missing Zero evidence documents were provided/used, so the record is not auditable from the extracted materials.
missing Low extraction confidence reduces reliability even if some sources existed outside the extracted record.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions are not stated in available documents. For a soil carbon removal project, reversal risk management (e.g., buffer pool contribution, monitoring for reversals, and any reversal events) is critical, but none of these elements were found in the extracted record. With no verification/monitoring reports to reference, integrity cannot be substantiated and is scored very low.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because there are no evidence documents listed and no extracted details on the VVB, monitoring period, or MRV procedures. Without verification/monitoring outputs (e.g., claimed vs verified removals or error rates), the quality of reporting cannot be assessed. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that the record is complete.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak by default because the extracted record provides no basis to evaluate over-crediting controls (baseline method, leakage justification/deductions, or reconciliation of claimed vs verified removals). Eligibility signals that can affect claim risk (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) were not found in the extracted record, leaving potential double-claim/marketability narratives ungrounded. Given the absence of auditable evidence, conservative scoring is warranted.
Documentation
Documentation is scored extremely low because the extracted record lists no evidence documents and indicates 0 documents were used. The minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the likelihood of missing critical information. With no dated monitoring/verification materials, recency and third-party assurance cannot be evaluated.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any underlying documents is itself a major reliability issue. Because no verification/monitoring/PDD content is available, none of the core quality determinants can be confirmed, so the overall score remains very low. Note: per the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality attributes (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, and MRV) cannot be substantiated. Given the low extraction confidence and zero documents available, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default.
Project Description
Why we chose this project: “Agriculture alone accounts for 9% of all GHG emissions in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2020) Crop lands may have a net negative or net positive impact on the climate, depending on land management. This project is the first of its kind in the US, designed to take advantage of
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing verification of additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, or monitoring.
- Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missed or misread critical details.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the CAR project documents (PDD, monitoring reports, verification reports, and registry issuance/retirement records) so additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, and MRV can be audited.
- Improve document readability/extraction quality (higher-confidence OCR or native PDFs) and include VVB details, monitoring period, and claimed vs verified removals with any findings/corrective actions.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
No additionality evidence found
Reversal controls not evidenced
Leakage not addressed in record
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
Eligibility/CCP status not evidenced
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →