Watering the West

Integrity

The verification report (2019) shows some risk management via a buffer pool contribution of 19.24% and a quantified leakage deduction of 20%, which supports conservative accounting. However, the baseline approach and when (or whether) it was last reassessed were not found in the extracted record, limiting confidence that credited removals are not overstated. Additionality is also unclear because neither the test type nor confirmation by the VVB was found in the extracted record. Reversal events were not found in the extracted record, so permanence performance cannot be confirmed from the available extraction.

Transparency

The verification report (2019) identifies the VVB (S&A Carbon, LLC) and specifies the monitoring period (2017-12-16 to 2018-12-15), which is a basic transparency positive. But the extracted record does not include claimed or verified total removals, preventing a check of quantified outcomes and any discrepancies. The monitoring/measurement approach (including any usage monitoring method) was not found in the extracted record, limiting MRV assessability. With only two documents (one unknown), the public record as extracted appears incomplete.

Claim Safety

Quantified leakage treatment with a 20% deduction (verification report, 2019) reduces the risk of inflated net crediting relative to projects that assume zero leakage. Still, baseline and additionality details were not found in the extracted record, which increases uncertainty about over-crediting and makes marketing claims harder to substantiate. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status were not found in the extracted record, so buyers cannot easily assess cross-program claim risks from the available extraction. Safeguards signals are weak (no FPIC and no grievance mechanism indicated), which can increase reputational risk for claims.

Documentation

A dated verification report is present (2019-12-20) and it reports no material findings and no corrective actions required, which supports document quality. The minimum extraction confidence is high, suggesting the available document(s) were readable. However, only two documents were used and one is listed as unknown, and several core items (methodology, baseline method, additionality test) were not found in the extracted record. This incompleteness limits how confidently the project can be evaluated from documentation alone.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range because the verification report (2019) provides some conservative accounting signals (19.24% buffer pool and 20% leakage deduction) and reports no material findings, but key determinants of credit quality (baseline and additionality) were not found in the extracted record. There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, so no cross-document discrepancies could be resolved or penalized. The safeguards picture is weak (no FPIC, no grievance mechanism, safeguards not mentioned), increasing reputational and stakeholder-risk concerns. Note: if integrity were scored below 4.0, an overall cap would apply post-scoring, but that gate is not triggered here.