A credit is a line in a registry. What you actually need is a defensible position — something that still stands up when the person who bought it has moved on and somebody asks how the decision was made. That is what arrives, as standard, in one file.
Not a certificate and a folder of links. Nine parts, each answering a question somebody will ask you later, arriving as standard rather than on request.
Registry cancellation records and serial numbers
Retired individually, naming your organisation as beneficiary, with transaction records. Verifiable directly against the registry without going through us.
The complete integrity screen
Every criterion, its verdict, the evidence that verdict rests on and the reasoning — including the ones accepted with reservations, and why.
Project-level 360° Impact assessments
Each project’s score, the step reached on every applicable goal, and the goals that could not apply to that activity type with the reason recorded.
The portfolio calculation and wheel
The tonne-weighted arithmetic behind your contracted band, every project’s own score, and the distribution of your claimed tonnes across the four bands.
The standards mapping
Applicable framework requirements, additional 360° requirements and client-use responsibilities, identified separately rather than presented as though they were the same thing.
The claim-prerequisite schedule
The intended claim, framework route and claim stage; the organisational evidence you supplied; requirements met, open or outside our scope; and the corresponding adjustment status of every credit, including where none applies.
Conservatism workings, where applicable
The parameter, its published source and date, the adjustment applied, and the additional volume retired to settle it.
The removal ledger, where relevant
Storage type, physical and effective duration, the durability role each removal has been assigned, and the outcome year matched to your reporting period.
A statement of what the credits do and do not support
The exact limit of the claim, written down, specific to the category you contracted. Not a disclaimer at the back — the point of the document.
Illustrative contents. Parts seven and eight appear where the engagement calls for them. The delivered pack also carries the framework anchor for every criterion and the assessor’s full reasoning, neither of which is reproduced on this page.
Any competent third party should be able to rebuild the assessment from the same documents. A screen that cannot be reproduced is not worth much to you.
Two facsimiles, both illustrative. The first shows how a criterion verdict is recorded, including one that fell short. The second is the page most clients turn to first.
| Criterion | Verdict | What the verdict rests on |
|---|---|---|
credible-baseline Tier 1 |
meets | Baseline reconstructed from the registered methodology and the monitoring report for the period. Grid emission factor cross-checked against the published national inventory and found consistent. |
ex-post-verified Tier 1 |
meets | Verification statement issued by an accredited body for the monitoring period, covering the full issued quantity. |
accurate-accounting |
meets | Quantification recalculated from the monitoring data. Material upstream process emissions identified and deducted from gross reduction. |
leakage |
gap | Displacement outside the project boundary is discussed qualitatively in the project design document. No quantified deduction is presented, and the monitoring plan does not provide for one. Recorded as a gap and disclosed; not a Tier 1 criterion, so it does not prevent a pass. |
emissions-matching Tier 1 |
meets | Issued quantity reconciles to the verified net reduction for the period. One credit corresponds to one tonne after adjustment. |
Illustrative extract, five criteria of twenty. The delivered pack carries all twenty, the framework anchor for each, the assessor’s full reasoning, and the evidence-completeness figure for the screen as a whole.
Corresponding adjustment status. Stated for every credit in the portfolio, including where none has been applied, which is what ISO 14068-1 and the ISO 14060 claim schedule ask of you.
Illustrative wording for a climate contribution. The statement is written for the category you contracted, and the four categories do not read alike.
They are exposed in different ways, and the same document answers both — but only because it was made at the time rather than assembled afterwards.
If a methodology is challenged later — by a regulator, an assurance provider, a journalist or a competitor — the question is rarely whether the credit was good. It is whether the company took reasonable care when it bought. That is a question about process, and it can only be answered with a record made at the time.
A Finance Director approving the spend, or a sustainability lead recommending it, is usually not a specialist in additionality testing or baseline reconstruction, while still being asked to stake their judgement on it. The pack means the recommendation does not rest on anyone’s personal say-so. It rests on a documented assessment against published criteria that anybody can inspect, test and rebuild.
Ask another provider for the documentation behind a credit and you may or may not receive it. At best you get a link to a registry holding dozens of documents, with no assessment, no intelligence, and nothing connecting any of it to the claim you are trying to make. Here it arrives as standard, because a screen a competent third party cannot reproduce from the same documents is not worth much to you.
Being clear about this is not a caveat bolted on at the end. It is the reason the document is worth anything: a record that overstated its own standing would fail at exactly the moment you needed it.
Where independent assurance is required, our documentation is structured to support that review. The assurance conclusion remains the independent provider’s.
We are your counterparty, not an assurance body
We sell you the credits. An assurance provider is independent of the transaction, and we are not. Treating our record as an assurance opinion would put both of us in a position neither should be in.
What we do warrant
That every carbon-carrying credit was assessed against the published eligibility criteria for its role, that the delivered portfolio met the contracted band at the date of assessment, and that the work was recorded in full.
What stays with you
Your emissions inventory, reduction pathway, recognition level, public reporting and the claim itself. The pack supplies the project assessment, retirement evidence, transaction records and framework mapping, and says which is which.
It is not a liability transfer
Compliance responsibility remains yours. What the pack gives you is a defensible, auditable trail documenting the care taken — which is the thing actually asked for when a claim is questioned.
Sustainability roles turn over, and a claim made this year may be questioned in three or four — by an assurance provider, a customer running a supply chain audit, a tender panel, or a journalist. By then whoever bought the credits has often moved on.
An invoice, a certificate, and possibly an email thread. A retirement certificate confirms what happened to the credit: that it was retired, in whose name, on what date. It does not explain why that credit was considered fit for the intended use — and that is the question that gets asked later.
Being inherited, not just filed. Your successor opens one document and can account for the decision without a briefing. Your auditor can read it without asking us anything. Neither has to reconstruct the reasoning from a registry link and a memory of a meeting.
You are not only buying carbon credits. You are buying an evidenced decision your organisation can defend.
The pack arrives as standard with every engagement, at no separate charge. If you are an assurance provider testing a claim one of our clients has made, say so and we will prioritise it.