avoidance Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

Where the Buffalo Roam

CE-where-the-buffalo-ro

1.5 / 10

Integrity

2.0

Transparency

0.5

Claim Safety

2.0

Documentation

1.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

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

inferred The project is labeled as an avoidance credit type, but permanence/reversal provisions were not documented in the extracted record.

Transparency

missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verification/monitoring results were found in the extracted record.

missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were provided.

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated because baseline method and any reassessment were not found in the extracted record.

missing CORSIA/CCP status and any double-claim controls were not found in the extracted record.

Documentation

missing No evidence documents were provided (0 documents used).

missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating document readability/ingestion issues.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No project design or assurance information was found in the extracted record (no PDD, monitoring report, or verification report listed). As a result, additionality testing, baseline validity, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions cannot be confirmed from documents. This creates a high uncertainty of over-crediting and unaddressed risks.

Transparency

The extracted record contains no public-facing MRV details such as monitoring periods, verification outcomes, or error rates, and no VVB is identified. With zero documents available, the completeness of registry information and the quality of monitoring/verification cannot be assessed. Transparency is therefore very weak based on available evidence.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is low because key eligibility and integrity signals (baseline method, leakage justification, and any CORSIA/CCP status) were not found in the extracted record. Without these, buyers cannot reliably assess greenwashing or over-crediting risk. Any marketing claims should be considered unsupported until primary documents are reviewed.

Documentation

No evidence documents were included in the extracted record and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable. This combination suggests major documentation gaps and/or ingestion issues. The lack of accessible source material prevents independent corroboration of project claims.

Overall

There are no listed contradictions, but the absence of any extracted documents (0 used) and low extraction confidence materially undermine confidence in all quality dimensions. Scores are therefore conservative and primarily reflect evidence gaps rather than confirmed deficiencies. Note: under the gate rules, documentation below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains no usable project details beyond the project name, standard, and basic classification. With no accessible documentation on baseline setting, additionality, leakage, or verification outcomes, credit quality cannot be substantiated and should be treated as high risk until primary documents are available.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: “The Cool Effect purchase of these tonnes allowed Southern Plains Land Trust to purchase additional land to add to existing lands designated for conservation and protection of native grassland animals and plants. Without the sale of carbon, it is unlikely that the expansion would have taken place. The addition

Red Flags

No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV.
Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability of any missing/partial information.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide and extract the core CAR documents (project design document, monitoring report(s), and verification report(s)) including baseline method, additionality demonstration, leakage assessment, and any corrective actions.
Publish/confirm registry and assurance details (VVB name, monitoring periods, verification statements, and any CORSIA/CCP status) and re-run extraction with readable source files to raise confidence.

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