Tieqilishi AWMS GHG Mitigation Project in Sichuan Province

Integrity

The project benefits from VVB-confirmed additionality and a combined additionality test under TPDDTEC Version 3.0, which supports the core project rationale. At the same time, leakage deduction, buffer pool coverage, and baseline reassessment timing are not stated in the available documents, so the integrity case is only moderate. No reversal events are reported in the extracted record, but the reversal field is also described as not addressed in one source, so permanence evidence is not fully clean.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated, and the VVB is named as Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd., which helps traceability. However, the extracted record does not provide total emissions reductions claimed versus verified, and key MRV details such as usage monitoring method are missing. The absence of FNRB and grid-factor details further limits public-facing transparency around the calculation basis.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by missing evidence on leakage, usage rates, and FNRB, all of which are important for assessing over-crediting risk in biogas electricity projects. The baseline is described only as project-specific, rather than a recently reassessed standardized baseline, which adds uncertainty. On the positive side, no reversal events are reported, and there is no evidence in the extracted record of double registration or dual issuance.

Documentation

The file draws on multiple document types, including the PDD and monitoring report, and it includes safeguards such as FPIC, grievance mechanisms, and benefit-sharing. Still, the presence of 14 corrective action requests and 5 clarification requests suggests material documentation issues. The minimum extraction confidence is medium rather than high, so the documentation score is held back by incomplete readability and missing quantified fields.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project file with some strong points, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and documented safeguards, but also several important evidence gaps. I privileged the more recent monitoring-report information where contradictions existed, but the reversal-events contradiction remains unresolved because one source says not addressed while another says none reported; I therefore treated permanence evidence conservatively. I also privileged the later crediting-period statement from the more recent monitoring report, but the conflicting period dates reduce reliability and keep the overall score in the middle range.