# Carbon Credit Methodology Comparison Report
**Generated**: {generated_date}
**Buyer Profile**: {buyer_preset_name}
**Compared**: {methodology_names}
---
## Executive Summary
{executive_summary}
**Key Findings**:
{key_findings}
**Recommendation**: {recommendation}
---
## Methodology Overview
{methodology_overviews}
---
## 9-Criteria Comparison
| Criterion | Score | Rating | Confidence | Key Evidence |
|-----------|-------|--------|------------|--------------|
| **MRV** | {mrv_score}/3.0 | {mrv_stars} | {mrv_confidence}% | {mrv_evidence} |
| **Additionality** | {additionality_score}/3.0 | {additionality_stars} | {additionality_confidence}% | {additionality_evidence} |
| **Leakage Risk** | {leakage_score}/3.0 | {leakage_stars} | {leakage_confidence}% | {leakage_evidence} |
| **Traceability** | {traceability_score}/3.0 | {traceability_stars} | {traceability_confidence}% | {traceability_evidence} |
| **Cost Efficiency** | {cost_efficiency_score}/3.0 | {cost_efficiency_stars} | {cost_efficiency_confidence}% | {cost_efficiency_evidence} |
| **Permanence** | {permanence_score}/3.0 | {permanence_stars} | {permanence_confidence}% | {permanence_evidence} |
| **Co-Benefits** | {co_benefits_score}/3.0 | {co_benefits_stars} | {co_benefits_confidence}% | {co_benefits_evidence} |
| **Accuracy** | {accuracy_score}/3.0 | {accuracy_stars} | {accuracy_confidence}% | {accuracy_evidence} |
| **Precision** | {precision_score}/3.0 | {precision_stars} | {precision_confidence}% | {precision_evidence} |
### Overall Scores
- **Unweighted Average**: {overall_score}/3.0
- **Weighted Score ({buyer_preset_name} Profile)**: {weighted_score}/3.0
- **Evidence Quality**: {evidence_quality}%
- **Response Time**: {response_time_ms}ms
---
## Detailed Analysis
### Key Strengths
{key_strengths}
### Areas for Validation
{areas_for_validation}
### Comparative Insights
{comparative_insights}
---
## Recommendation
Based on **{buyer_preset_name}** priorities (emphasizing {focus_areas}):
{recommendation_detail}
### Rationale
{recommendation_rationale}
### Next Steps
{next_steps}
---
## Data Sources & Citations
**Primary Sources**:
{data_sources}
**Methodology Documents**:
{methodology_citations}
**Blockchain Data**:
{blockchain_citations}
---
## Methodology
This report uses a **9-Criteria Assessment Framework** aligned with international carbon credit standards:
1. **MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, Verification)**: Rigor and frequency of carbon accounting
2. **Additionality**: Demonstration that credits represent additional climate impact
3. **Leakage Risk**: Management of displaced emissions outside project boundaries
4. **Traceability**: Transparency and tracking of credit issuance and ownership
5. **Cost Efficiency**: Economic viability and accessibility for project developers
6. **Permanence**: Long-term carbon storage and reversal risk management
7. **Co-Benefits**: Documented environmental and social co-benefits beyond carbon
8. **Accuracy**: Precision of carbon quantification methods
9. **Precision**: Consistency and statistical validation of measurements
Each criterion is scored on a 0-3.0 scale with evidence from:
- Methodology documentation
- Blockchain transaction data (Regen Ledger)
- Project metadata and batch information
- Market data and pricing trends
Buyer profiles apply different weights to criteria based on organizational priorities:
- **High-Integrity**: Emphasizes MRV, additionality, permanence
- **EU Risk-Sensitive**: Emphasizes leakage, traceability, co-benefits
- **Net-Zero**: Emphasizes cost-efficiency, accuracy, volume availability
---
*Report generated by Regen MCP Server - Methodology Comparison Tool*
*Data sources: Regen Registry, Regen Ledger blockchain, methodology documents*
*Framework: 9-Criteria Assessment with buyer-specific weighting*
*Confidence levels reflect data availability and quality for each criterion*
