THEPARAK WIND IN THAILAND

Integrity

The project’s additionality is relatively well supported because the verification report confirms it through a combined test and the VVB is identified as 4K Earth Science Private Limited. Integrity is weakened by the verification findings: multiple CARs and CLs were raised, the report notes incomplete sections, and there are inconsistencies around project description deviations and meter-related values. Leakage is described as quantified, but the actual deduction percentage is not stated in the extracted record, so the robustness of the treatment cannot be fully checked.

Transparency

Transparency is only moderate because the monitoring period is stated and the verifier is named, but several core MRV fields are missing from the extracted documents. The record does not state total verified or claimed ERs, the usage monitoring method, or the leakage deduction percentage, which limits external review. Low extraction confidence also suggests at least one key document was difficult to read, further reducing documentation clarity.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed: this is a wind avoidance project under ACM0002, which is generally lower risk than removal projects, and the baseline was last reassessed in 2017. However, the contradiction on leakage treatment is important: one document says leakage was deemed negligible while a later one says it was quantified, and I privilege the later statement because it is more recent. The verification findings also mention ER value inconsistencies and meter mismatches, which increase over-crediting concern; CORSIA and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out.

Documentation

Documentation quality is weak-to-moderate. The file set is fairly broad, with many extracted facts and a named VVB, and safeguards such as FPIC, benefit sharing, and a grievance mechanism are mentioned. But low extraction confidence, repeated corrective-action items, and missing details on interviews, site visits, and several MRV fields indicate incomplete or difficult-to-verify documentation.

Overall

Overall, this project looks directionally credible as a wind avoidance activity, but the evidence package is not clean enough for a high-confidence score. I privileged the more recent crediting-period statement from 2024 over the older 2021 period, the later leakage description of 'quantified' over the earlier 'deemed negligible' statement, and the later benefit-sharing description over the older negative statement because they are more recent and appear to reflect updated documentation. The contradictions and verification issues materially reduce reliability, and the low extraction confidence further depresses the documentation assessment.