UN-DO
DV-800a67
Score Breakdown
Integrity
inferred The record says no reversal events were reported and describes the carbon as permanently removed for 100,000+ years.
missing Additionality, baseline method, leakage treatment, and buffer pool coverage are not stated in available documents.
Transparency
missing The VVB name, monitoring period, and verified versus claimed issuance figures are not found in the extracted record.
inferred The project is described as a removal project, but the documentation is too incomplete to assess MRV quality or registry completeness.
Claim Safety
missing No baseline method, leakage justification, or verified issuance data are available, increasing over-crediting risk.
inferred CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out.
Documentation
missing Extraction confidence is low and one or more key documents were poorly readable.
inferred Seven documents were used, but the extracted record still lacks most core fields and contains a safeguards contradiction.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The record does not state the additionality test, whether a VVB confirmed it, the baseline method, or any leakage deduction, so the core integrity case is largely unsubstantiated. The only clear positive is that no reversal events were reported and the project is described as permanent removal, but the absence of buffer pool information and other methodological details keeps the score very low.
Transparency
Transparency is weak because the extracted record does not identify the VVB, monitoring period, or any claimed versus verified issuance totals. Public-facing MRV completeness cannot be judged from the available material, and the low extraction confidence further reduces trust in the documentation.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is limited by the lack of a stated baseline method, leakage treatment, and verified issuance figures, all of which are important for over-crediting risk. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so there is no evidence-based way to rule out dual-claim exposure.
Documentation
Although seven documents were used, the extraction confidence is low and many key fields are missing rather than merely unspecified. The contradiction on safeguards also reduces reliability, and there are no corrective actions or material findings to help interpret the quality of the evidence set.
Overall
The overall score is constrained by major evidence gaps and low extraction confidence. I privileged the explicit statements that no reversal events were reported and that the project is framed as permanent removal, but I did not treat that as sufficient to offset the missing methodology and verification details. The contradiction on safeguards was resolved conservatively by noting that safeguards are mentioned, but the record also contains a conflicting low value, so reliability is downgraded.
Audit Analysis
The available record is too thin to support a strong quality assessment. Key items such as the baseline method, additionality test, leakage treatment, monitoring period, and verified issuance figures are not stated in the extracted documents, and the extraction quality is low. The project is presented as permanent removals, but the evidence base is incomplete and includes a safeguards contradiction, so confidence is very limited.
Project Description
WHO ARE UNDO? ● UK-based carbon removal scale-up ● Scaling enhanced rock weathering (ERW) ● UK, US & Australia-based operations ● Part of Stripe Climate portfolio ● Leading Science & Research team ● Target to remove 1bn. tonnes by 2030 How we approach measurement There are several handles to show that weathering has taken place: ● Products of weathering (Ca, Mg, Na, K and increase in pH). ● Fate of the CO2 sequestered through the reaction of carbonic acid and hydroxide ions released
Red Flags
- Core methodological details are not stated in the available documents, including baseline approach, additionality test, leakage treatment, and monitoring period.
- The record has low extraction confidence and a contradiction on safeguards, which weakens reliability.
- No verified issuance totals, VVB name, or registry completeness details were found.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the full PDD, validation/verification report, and monitoring report with the baseline method, additionality test, leakage treatment, and issuance reconciliation clearly stated.
- Disclose the VVB name, monitoring period, registry records, and any CORSIA or CCP status, and resolve the safeguards contradiction with explicit evidence of FPIC, grievance handling, and benefit sharing.
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 assessment found
No reversals reported
Leakage treatment not found
Baseline method not stated
Safeguards partly documented
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Registry Documents
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 →