Carbon Integrity Assessment Framework | JSC Consultancy Services

The decision problem

Verification answers an important question. Integrity assessment asks additional ones.

Carbon projects can accumulate substantial documentation over their lifetime: project descriptions, methodologies, monitoring reports, verification reports, calculation files, registry records and supporting studies.

Those materials are essential, but a buyer, investor, portfolio owner or project developer may still need to understand whether:

additionality remains convincing beyond formal methodology conformity;
baseline and carbon-accounting assumptions are sufficiently conservative;
monitoring evidence supports deeper independent scrutiny of credited reductions;
methodology choices or historical parameters create material exposure;
apparent inconsistencies represent genuine integrity concerns or primarily reconciliation issues;
additional evidence or analysis could materially change the assessment.

JSC’s framework was developed to organize those questions into a controlled, evidence-led assessment rather than relying on a generic checklist or document summary.

Not every issue is a red flag

01

Information gap

Evidence needed to resolve a question.

02

Methodology / consistency issue

A rule, parameter or reporting difference requiring interpretation.

03

Potential red flag

An issue with a plausible integrity implication requiring further analysis.

04

Material integrity risk

An issue supported by evidence and material enough to influence the integrity view.

The framework evaluates evidence + direction + materiality + decision relevance — not simply the number of issues identified.

Illustrative Red Flag Register

Risk Area	Finding Type	Evidence Status	Integrity Implication	Priority
Carbon Accounting	Potential red flag	Project-specific support incomplete	Materiality requires sensitivity testing	High
Additionality	Requires expert review	Supporting evidence + unresolved questions	Project-specific defensibility needs further testing	Medium
MRV & Traceability	Information gap	Verification available; deeper replication incomplete	Additional evidence required for deeper DD	Medium

Carbon Accounting

High

Finding type: Potential red flag
Evidence status: Project-specific support incomplete
Integrity implication: Materiality requires sensitivity testing

Additionality

Medium

Finding type: Requires expert review
Evidence status: Supporting evidence + unresolved questions
Integrity implication: Project-specific defensibility needs further testing

MRV & Traceability

Medium

Finding type: Information gap
Evidence status: Verification available; deeper replication incomplete
Integrity implication: Additional evidence required for deeper DD

Illustrative anonymized example — not a client deliverable.

How the framework works

01

Control the evidence base

Define the project, assessment period and controlling documentation.

Project design documents, applicable methodologies, monitoring and verification reports, registry information and relevant calculation files are assembled into a controlled evidence package.

02

Structure the integrity questions

Assess the evidence against project-specific risk drivers.

The review is organized around issues such as additionality, common practice, regulatory surplus, carbon revenue, baseline assumptions, carbon-accounting parameters, monitoring and permanence.

03

Separate evidence from interpretation

Distinguish what is documented from what still requires judgement.

Supporting evidence, unresolved information gaps, inconsistencies and potential integrity issues are tracked separately rather than collapsed into a single risk list.

04

Build the Red Flag Register

Identify the issues that deserve further scrutiny — together with the evidence that may mitigate them.

Potential concerns are assessed against their supporting evidence, integrity implication, follow-up requirements and relative priority.

05

Quantify material sensitivities

Move from “this may matter” to “how much could it matter?”

Where an accounting assumption or parameter could materially affect credited reductions, expert calculations test plausible alternative assumptions and their potential implications.

06

Synthesize for the decision

Translate evidence and technical findings into a decision-ready integrity view.

The resulting assessment separates supporting factors, unresolved questions, material concerns and recommended next analysis.

From evidence to integrity insight

Stage 1

Project evidence

Project documentation
Methodology
Monitoring & Verification
Registry
Calculations

Stage 2

Structured assessment

Additionality
Carbon Accounting
Permanence
MRV
Cross-cutting risks

Stage 3

Expert review

Supporting evidence
Information gaps
Potential red flags

Stage 4

Materiality & sensitivity

Direction
Magnitude
Carbon-credit implication

Stage 5

Decision output

Red Flag Report
Follow-up questions
Deeper Integrity & Risk Assessment where required

Developed through project-level application

The framework did not begin as a theoretical product design.

Its initial analytical structure emerged from detailed Red Flag and integrity assessment work on operating landfill-methane projects, where additionality, carbon accounting, permanence, MRV and project-specific integrity questions had to be evaluated together.

That work was subsequently decomposed into controlled analytical components and converted into a repeatable workflow.

The workflow was then tested against separate landfill-methane projects with different project histories, methodology pathways, monitoring records and evidence packages. These subsequent applications helped test whether the approach could consistently distinguish between supporting evidence, information gaps, methodology questions and potentially material integrity concerns.

Selected analytical examples

Example 01

When a parameter gap becomes a material accounting issue

In one project assessment, the available evidence supported use of a methodology default for a key baseline parameter but did not provide project-specific evidence demonstrating that the assumption remained conservative.

The framework initially treated the issue as a potential red flag requiring expert review, rather than assuming over-crediting.

Targeted sensitivity analysis was then used to test alternative defensible assumptions and determine whether the potential effect on credited reductions was material.

Assessment lesson

Documentation gaps should not automatically be treated as integrity failures — but material parameters should be quantified before being dismissed as documentation issues.

Example 02

When a methodology difference is not an over-crediting risk

A separate review identified that historical monitoring periods had used a different methane global-warming-potential value from later periods.

Rather than treating the difference itself as evidence of over-crediting, the assessment asked: What requirement applied? → What was the direction of the difference? → What was the issuance effect? → Was it material?

The lower historical value was directionally conservative for credited CO₂e and therefore did not, by itself, support an over-crediting conclusion.

Assessment lesson

Carbon-integrity analysis requires direction and materiality, not simply the detection of differences.

Example 03

Methodology additionality versus project-specific defensibility

In another part of the assessment, a project qualified through an applicable positive-list additionality route.

The framework recognized that this could support methodology-level additionality conformity while still leaving a broader project-level question: does the available evidence support the underlying presumption that the activity was genuinely non-business-as-usual?

The assessment therefore retained questions around carbon-finance dependence, common practice and non-carbon incentives without treating the absence of a conventional investment analysis as an automatic failure.

Assessment lesson

Methodology conformity and project-specific integrity are related, but they do not always answer exactly the same question.

From issue detection to materiality

Step 1

Observed issue

A parameter, assumption or inconsistency is identified.

Step 2

Technical interpretation

What rule applies?
What is the direction of the issue?

Step 3

Sensitivity test

Current assumption
vs.
alternative defensible assumption

Step 4

Materiality judgement

Potential effect on credited reductions
+
relevance to the integrity conclusion

Moving from “this may matter” to “how much could it matter?”

Typical assessment outputs

Project & Evidence Snapshot

A controlled view of the project, methodology, assessment period and principal documentation.

Evidence & Information-Gap Register

Structured separation of supporting evidence, unresolved gaps and priority follow-up needs.

Carbon Credit Red Flag Report

A decision-oriented summary of the most material potential integrity issues, mitigating evidence and priority questions.

Expert Sensitivity Analysis

Targeted calculations where assumptions or parameters may materially affect credited reductions.

Risk-Driver Assessment

Structured technical assessment across the principal integrity drivers relevant to the project.

Follow-up Evidence Request

A prioritized list of information capable of resolving or materially changing the assessment.

Designed to support better questions — not artificial certainty

The framework helps buyers, investors, developers and portfolio owners determine which integrity concerns are actually material, which apparent issues are supported or mitigated by the evidence, where independent sensitivity analysis is warranted, what additional information should be requested and whether deeper technical diligence is justified before a consequential decision.

The objective is not to reduce complex project evidence to a binary pass/fail result.

It is to make the technical basis for a decision clearer, traceable and more defensible.

From framework to product

From technical framework to Carbon Integrity Report

The Carbon Integrity Report — CIR builds on this project-level assessment framework by organizing the process into a repeatable, AI-assisted and expert-reviewed integrity screen for existing carbon projects and associated credits.

A standard CIR engagement is designed to produce a structured Carbon Credit Red Flag Report, with the option to expand into a deeper Integrity & Risk Assessment where the decision requires greater analytical depth.

Explore the Carbon Integrity Report →Discuss an assessment →