avoidance Brazil Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

This Place is Nuts

CE-this-place-is-nuts

0.9 / 10

Integrity

1.5

Transparency

0.0

Claim Safety

1.2

Documentation

0.5

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record

inferred Project is labeled as an avoidance credit type, but permanence/leakage/baseline details are not documented here

Transparency

missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or quantified verification outcomes were found in the extracted record

missing Registry completeness cannot be evaluated because no evidence documents were captured

Claim Safety

missing No information found on baseline setting, leakage justification, or eligibility statuses that affect claim risk (e.g., CORSIA/CCP)

inferred With no documents, over-crediting risk cannot be bounded and should be treated as elevated

Documentation

missing Zero evidence documents were captured (0 documents used)

missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating poor readability or missing capture of key sources

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No project design, baseline method, additionality assessment, leakage treatment, or permanence risk management information was found in the extracted record because no evidence documents were captured. With low extraction confidence, even if documents exist externally, the current record cannot support an integrity assessment. Scores are therefore conservative to reflect an unverified baseline and unsubstantiated additionality/leakage controls.

Transparency

Transparency is very weak because the extracted record includes no verification/monitoring reports, no VVB identification, and no monitoring period information. Without documents, there is no way to compare claimed versus verified outcomes or evaluate MRV quality. The low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that the record is complete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is low because there is no documented basis to judge over-crediting risk (baseline setting, leakage justification, or any conservative parameters). No information was found on CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so potential downstream claim risks cannot be screened. In the absence of evidence, the project should be treated as high risk for marketing claims.

Documentation

Documentation quality is extremely poor: the extracted record shows zero evidence documents and zero documents used. Minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable or not successfully extracted. This prevents any meaningful validation of project attributes or performance.

Overall

There are no listed contradictions, but the absence of any captured documents combined with low extraction confidence makes the dataset unreliable for quality assessment. Given the evidence gap across all core criteria, the overall score is kept very low. Note: under 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 elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV) cannot be assessed. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: The project creates an association of families to provide collective price bargaining power, establish new markets for products, and create operational economies of scale for their product – all while protecting the forest that provides their livelihood. Not only are farmers now encouraged to report suspicious activity, but they

Red Flags

No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing assessment of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring
Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable or not captured, undermining reliability

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the PDD and the most recent verification and monitoring reports (including VVB name, monitoring period, and any findings/corrective actions) so additionality, baseline, and MRV can be assessed
Disclose leakage assessment (including any deduction and justification), baseline reassessment timing, and any eligibility/label statuses (e.g., CORSIA and CCP) to reduce claim and double-claim risk

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.