Walsenburg Facility

Integrity

The extracted record references an investment additionality test, but it is not confirmed by a VVB in the available extraction. The baseline is described as project-specific, and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record. Leakage is said to be quantified, yet the actual leakage deduction (percent) is not found, and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool contribution are also not found. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted documents, but the absence of key quantified parameters limits integrity confidence.

Transparency

Transparency is constrained because the extracted record does not include a VVB name, monitoring period, or any claimed versus verified removal totals. While safeguards are mentioned and both FPIC and a grievance mechanism are indicated in the extracted record, the evidence set is thin and not clearly identified (listed as “unknown”). The registry is listed as “other,” and CORSIA eligibility is not stated in the extracted record, limiting completeness for buyers.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as CCP-approved in the extracted record, which may support claim defensibility depending on the scope and recency of that approval. However, the extracted record lacks the verified removal quantity, leakage deduction value, and key baseline quantifications, making it difficult to rule out over-crediting. CORSIA eligibility is not stated in the extracted record, so aviation-claim implications cannot be assessed from the available data.

Documentation

Documentation quality is moderate: the methodology version and date are captured (Edition 2023 v.1; 2023-11) and extraction confidence is high. However, only two documents were used and the evidence document list is not identifiable (shown as “unknown”), with no extracted monitoring/verification report details such as the VVB name, monitoring period, or verified removals. No corrective actions are reported, but the limited and non-specific document set reduces auditability.

Overall

No contradictions were flagged in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The main limitation is not inconsistency but missing quantification: verified removals, monitoring period, leakage deduction percentage, and permanence/buffer provisions are not found in the extracted record. Given these evidence gaps, the scores emphasize uncertainty and potential over-crediting risk rather than confirmed deficiencies. Note: if integrity were to score below 4.0, an overall cap would apply post-scoring under the gate rules.