Sample VM0007 v1.8 Evidence Readiness Assessment

This redacted sample demonstrates the structure, level of detail, and practical outputs of an Article6 assessment.

The sample is based on publicly available project documentation. It does not represent a commissioned engagement, customer relationship, endorsement, or validation decision.

Evidence Readiness Assessment

VM0007 v1.8

Sample Assessment Report

Prepared by Article6

•Executive readiness summary
•Priority findings
•Requirement-by-requirement assessment
•Evidence references
•Recommended actions
•Assessment scope and limitations

Example findings

Illustrative examples

Unclear

Carbon-pool selection needs a clearer basis

Requirement / review context: Carbon pools included in the accounting boundary, and any exclusions, should be justified against the applicable methodology requirements.
Evidence reviewed: The project description and emissions calculations identify the principal pools; supporting rationale for an excluded pool is not consistently referenced.
Gap or issue identified: The exclusion rationale is stated at a high level, but the supporting source or calculation boundary is not traceable from the reviewed documents.
Why it matters: An unsupported exclusion can affect completeness of the baseline and project-emissions assessment.
Required action: Add a pool-by-pool applicability table with the exclusion basis and direct document or calculation references.
Resolution criterion: Every excluded pool has a documented applicability rationale that reconciles to the accounting boundary and cited evidence.

Action required

Sampling design is not sufficiently supported in the PDD

Requirement / review context: The PDD should substantiate the sampling and stratification design required by the applicable methodology, including its basis for representativeness.
Evidence reviewed: The PDD describes sampling and identifies strata, but the stratification logic and sample-size rationale, where applicable, are not fully supported by internal references.
Gap or issue identified: The PDD does not make it possible to trace how the proposed design supports representative coverage or remains consistent with the applicable methodology.
Why it matters: An under-supported design creates an evidence-readiness gap before a validator can assess whether the PDD's approach is adequately justified.
Required action: Add the design basis, stratification logic, sample-size rationale where applicable, and clear PDD references supporting methodology consistency.
Resolution criterion: The PDD explains the sampling design and representativeness basis, with each element traceable to the applicable methodology and supporting section.

Unclear

Internal methodology references are inconsistent

Requirement / review context: The PDD should use current, unambiguous internal references for each methodology requirement and the evidence supporting it.
Evidence reviewed: Several PDD sections address the same requirement, but some section citations and methodology-version references do not align.
Gap or issue identified: Broken or outdated citations make it unclear which PDD section is the controlling reference for the assessed requirement.
Why it matters: A validator may spend additional time resolving traceability defects or question whether the PDD applies the intended methodology version consistently.
Required action: Review the PDD's internal citations, update outdated methodology or version references, and identify one controlling section for each requirement.
Resolution criterion: Each assessed requirement has a current, unambiguous PDD reference, with broken citations corrected and superseded references removed or clearly marked.

Download Sample Assessment

Download the full VM0007 v1.8 pre-validation evidence readiness assessment sample.

Download Sample Report (PDF)

Reviewing your own project documentation? Start with a scope review →

All findings shown are illustrative examples. This sample does not represent a real project assessment, engagement, or validation outcome.