VCS Other China Registry: Late to verify Documentazione parziale General Methodology v2.0

Yingpeng HFC23 Decompostion Project

VCS-439 ↗

1.0 / 10

Integrity

1.5

Transparency

0.0

Claim Safety

1.5

Documentation

0.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Baseline approach, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and any material findings/corrective actions are not found in the extracted record (no documents available)

inferred Project type (HFC-23 destruction) is inherently high-risk for over-crediting/perverse incentives, but the extracted record provides no project-specific controls to assess

Transparency

missing No monitoring/verification details (periods, methods, errors, VVB identity) are found in the extracted record (no documents available)

missing Low extraction confidence reduces confidence that public documentation is complete and accurately captured

Claim Safety

missing No evidence in the extracted record on baseline stringency, national/default factors, or any checks against over-crediting (no documents available)

inferred Eligibility/labels that affect downstream claims (e.g., CORSIA/CCP status) are not found in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for buyers

Documentation

missing No evidence documents were provided/used (0 documents), creating a major evidence gap

missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating documentation quality/legibility issues

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No baseline method, additionality assessment, leakage approach, buffer/reversal provisions, or verification findings are available in the extracted record because no documents were provided/used. With minimum extraction confidence marked low, even basic integrity checks cannot be reliably performed. Given the industrial HFC-23 destruction context, this evidence gap is particularly material because project-specific controls are essential to rule out over-crediting and perverse incentives.

Transparency

The extracted record contains no VVB name, monitoring period, monitoring methodology, or verification error checks because no documents were available. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that any public MRV information was captured accurately. As a result, the project is not assessable for MRV transparency based on the provided record.

Claim Safety

No information is available in the extracted record on baseline stringency, leakage justification, or any cross-checks that would reduce over-crediting risk. The record also does not include CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, leaving downstream claim risk unresolved. For HFC-23 destruction, this lack of evidence elevates greenwashing risk because buyers cannot substantiate that credited reductions are conservative and non-perverse.

Documentation

The extracted record shows zero documents used and an empty evidence list, indicating a severe documentation gap. Minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the likelihood of missing critical details. This warrants a very low documentation score and triggers the post-processing gate risk that transparency may be capped due to insufficient documentation.

Overall

There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any underlying documents (0 used) and low extraction confidence make the dataset unreliable for quality assessment. Because core determinants (baseline, additionality, MRV, findings) are not evidenced, scores are conservatively low across all dimensions. Note: the documentation score is below 3.0, so a transparency cap may be applied by the gate rules after scoring.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so key quality determinants (baseline, additionality, monitoring, and findings) cannot be verified. Given the project type (HFC-23 destruction) is historically high-risk for over-crediting and perverse incentives, the absence of evidence materially increases integrity and claim-risk concerns.

Project Description

This project aimed to collect and decompose HFC23 waste from HCFC22 production using an incinerator at Yingpeng Chemical Co., Ltd. The waste will be turned into CO2, HCl, and HF through high-temperature incineration and be processed through cooling and de-acidification before being released into the atmosphere.

Red Flags

No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing verification of baseline, additionality, monitoring, and verification outcomes
Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missed or misread critical details
HFC-23 destruction projects are widely considered high over-crediting/perverse-incentive risk, but no safeguards or controls are evidenced in the extracted record

Credit Vintages

		Issued	Retired	Available
2008		3,409,550	596,537	2,813,013
Total		3,409,550	596,537	2,813,013

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the PDD, latest monitoring report, and latest verification report so baseline approach, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions can be assessed
Provide registry and eligibility information (VVB identity, monitoring periods, issuance details, and any CORSIA/CCP status) and ensure documents are machine-readable to resolve the low extraction confidence

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