MCC-200-T1 — MCC Methodology Template

Document control (of this Template)

Field	Value
Document code	MCC-200-T1
Title	MCC Methodology Template
Version	1.0-draft
Status	DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION (companion to MCC-200 v3.0-draft; not adopted)
Date of this draft	3 September 2026
Tier	Tier 5 (template) — cannot weaken any higher-tier requirement (MCC-001 clause 2.2.3)
Governing instrument	MCC-200 Methodology Framework v3.0 (Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11); MCC-100 Programme Standard v3.0 Sections 6–12
Document owner	Programme Administrator (transitional, until a Secretariat is staffed — FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C3)
Effective date	None; adopted together with, or after, MCC-200 v3.0 (its clause 17.4)
Classification	Public — consultation draft
Consultation period	30 days (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C4), from the opening recorded on the consultation register (FD-2026-09-04 item 2; FD-2026-10-01 item 5)

Consultation questions

Each point below is open for comment. A proposal is the administration's proposal, put to consultation under founder direction FD-2026-10-01; it is not a rule in force. The suite is to be adopted as one instrument once its longest consultation period has closed (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C4). Because it includes the Constitution, whose amendment is within the competence of the constituted Governing Board (FD-2026-08-24 item D11, recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed), each point below is decided by the Governing Board on adoption of the suite; a clause of this text that provides another route for adopting it alone is itself open to comment.

No point is listed for this draft. Its one open point, the document owner, is stated in the control table above under FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C3. Comments on any part of the Template are invited.

How to use this Template

How to use this Template (drafting instructions are non-normative; the section requirements they explain are normative under MCC-200 Section 7).

1. Every MCC methodology SHALL be drafted on this Template without structural deviation (MCC-200 clause 6.3). Complete every section applicable to the methodology's family and instrument; where a section is inapplicable, keep the heading and state "Not applicable" with the reason (for example, "Section 9 — Not applicable: flow-based F03 GHG leg with no stored-carbon component, per MCC-200 clause 9.6").
2. Text in ‹…› is a placeholder to be replaced. Text in italics under "Drafting instructions" is guidance and is deleted from the final methodology. Tables marked "mandatory" must be completed row-complete — no cell left blank; use "None" or "Not applicable" with reasons.
3. Normative verbs: SHALL/MUST mandatory; SHOULD recommended with documented deviation; MAY optional (MCC-001 clause 3.1). One testable requirement per numbered provision. British English. Do not redefine any Definitions Register term (MCC-001 clause 3.4).
4. Nothing drafted on this Template may state a decision owner or threshold (MCC-700 clause 8.2), define an instrument locally (MCC-100 clause 4.9), use a family taxonomy other than control table 2, or make any permanence, alignment or eligibility claim prohibited by MCC-001 Section 8, MCC-100 clauses 11.3 and 21.9, or the prohibited-wording list (control table 6).
5. The completed methodology is one element of the dossier defined in MCC-200 Section 11; the Template's section-to-module map is in Annex T-C.

---

‹Methodology title›

Section 0 — Identification and version control

Drafting instructions: complete every row. The methodology code is assigned by the Standards Committee (MCC-200 clause 5.9) — do not invent one. Status values come only from MCC-200 clause 5.2. Every version row must name its creating instrument; approval claims require the Evidence Register link (MCC-001 clause 10.11).

Field	Entry
Methodology code	‹assigned code, e.g. M0xx or pilot code — do not self-assign›
Title	‹full title naming the activity, not the outcome claim›
Version	‹x.y›
Status	‹CONCEPT / DRAFT / CONSULTATION / PILOT / APPROVED / WITHDRAWN-RETIRED — per the Methodology Status Register only›
Family	‹F01–F05, generated from the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix›
Instrument(s)	‹MCC-CC / MCC-MOU / both with split ledgers — as the Matrix permits for the family›
MCC-CB labels supported	‹list, or "None"›
Proponent	‹name and contact›
Governing framework versions	MCC-100 v‹..›; MCC-200 v‹..›; Template MCC-200-T1 v‹..›
Required tool versions	‹each quantification tool with exact version — MCC-200 clause 6.6›
Approval decision	‹instrument reference + Evidence Register link, or "Not approved"›
Dossier index	‹link to the published dossier index — MCC-200 clause 11.3›

0.1 Version history

Version	Date	Change (minor/major per MCC-200 clause 12.2)	Creating instrument
‹x.y›	‹date›	‹summary›	‹instrument reference›

0.2 Local definitions

Drafting instructions: only terms unique to this methodology (MCC-200 clause 2.4). Each entry: term, definition, why it is not a Definitions Register term.

Term	Definition	Justification for local definition
‹term›	‹definition›	‹reason›

Section 1 — Summary of the methodology (non-normative)

Drafting instructions: one page maximum. State plainly: the activity; the family; what is credited (instrument, outcome metric); what is expressly NOT credited; the crediting period per MCC-200 Annex B; and the headline conservativeness features. Make the "not credited" list explicit — e.g. for a gear-retrieval methodology: "No tonne of CO2e is quantified or issued from gear mass removed or prevented alone (MCC-200 clause 13.8)."

‹Summary text›

Section 2 — Applicability conditions (MOD-01)

Drafting instructions: every condition must be testable at validation from stated evidence (MCC-200 clause 7.2). Write each condition as a separate numbered provision with its evidence standard. Include negative conditions (when this methodology SHALL NOT be used) — these are as important as the positive ones. Do not restate programme-level eligibility (MCC-100 Section 6); cite it.

2.1 This methodology applies only where all of the following conditions are met, each evidenced as stated:

#	Applicability condition	Evidence required at validation
A1	‹eligible activity description›	‹evidence›
A2	‹geographic/ecosystem applicability, e.g. ecosystem type, tidal range, salinity class›	‹evidence›
A3	‹technology/practice scope›	‹evidence›
A4	‹legal and tenure preconditions — right to the environmental attribute, MCC-100 clause 6.2›	‹evidence›
A5	‹data availability preconditions, keyed to the Section 5 data hierarchy›	‹evidence›

2.2 This methodology SHALL NOT be applied where: ‹list exclusion conditions — e.g. incompatible prior land/sea use, overlap unresolved under Section 8, activity on the ESS exclusion list, host-country law prohibits the activity›.

2.3 Programme-level eligibility (MCC-100 Section 6), domestic legality (MCC-100 Section 16) and safeguards screening (MCC-100 Section 14) apply in addition to this Section and are not restated here.

Section 3 — Project boundary (MOD-02)

Drafting instructions: define the spatial, temporal and gas/outcome-metric boundary (MCC-100 clause 8.2). List EVERY source, sink, reservoir or outcome metric considered, included or excluded — an exclusion is permitted only where conservative, and the justification column must say why omission cannot overstate the credited outcome. For split-ledger (F03) methodologies, provide one boundary table per ledger and state that no element appears in both.

3.1 Spatial boundary: ‹definition, mapping standard, geodata format and precision›.

3.2 Temporal boundary: ‹start of the baseline period; crediting period per MCC-200 Annex B; monitoring period structure›.

3.3 Included and excluded sources, sinks, reservoirs and outcome metrics (mandatory table):

#	Source/sink/reservoir or outcome metric	Gas or metric	Included?	Justification (conservative if excluded)
B1	‹element›	‹CO2 / CH4 / N2O / outcome metric›	‹Yes/No›	‹justification›

3.4 ‹Split-ledger methodologies only› The GHG ledger and the marine-outcome ledger comprise, respectively, boundary elements ‹list› and ‹list›; no element is quantified in both ledgers, and no quantity is converted, netted or transferred between them (MCC-200 clause 13.7).

Section 4 — Additionality (MOD-02)

Drafting instructions: implement each test of MCC-100 Section 7 as concrete procedures — name the data sources, metrics and pass/fail criteria; do not merely repeat the programme rule. Where a test is implemented by a tool, cite the tool and version. The anti-gaming provision (4.5) is mandatory for every removal/retrieval/remediation activity (MCC-200 clause 7.4) — state the specific gaming vectors for this activity and the control for each.

4.1 Regulatory surplus (MCC-100 clause 7.2). The project SHALL demonstrate that the credited outcome is not required by applicable law, using: ‹legal-analysis procedure, jurisdictional sources, currency requirement›. ‹If suppressed enforcement is invoked: the documented criteria, the conservative discount of ‹X — justify›, and the MCC-100 clause 8.8 cap.›

4.2 Common practice (MCC-100 clause 7.3). Penetration metric: ‹definition›. Geographic and sectoral reference area: ‹definition›. Data sources: ‹sources›. Threshold: the activity is common practice where ‹criterion›; where common practice, additionality is denied unless ‹defined distinguishing barriers, each verifiable›.

4.3 Barrier and investment analysis (MCC-100 clause 7.4). ‹Required/not required for this methodology — justify.› Where required: financial-analysis method ‹method, benchmark rate source, sensitivity requirements›; acceptable barrier evidence ‹classes›.

4.4 Prior consideration (MCC-100 clause 7.5). Required documentation predating the implementation decision: ‹classes›. Transition rule for pre-existing activities: ‹rule, or "None — no pre-existing activity is eligible"›.

4.5 Perverse incentives and anti-gaming (MCC-100 clause 7.6). Gaming vectors specific to this activity: ‹e.g. staged deposition of gear or pollutants for credited retrieval; deliberate degradation to inflate a protection baseline›. Controls: ‹for each vector — detection method, evidence, consequence›.

4.6 Continued additionality (MCC-100 clause 7.7). Reassessment triggers and procedure at each crediting-period renewal and material change: ‹procedure›.

Section 5 — Baseline scenario and data hierarchy (MOD-02)

Drafting instructions: define the baseline determination procedure (MCC-100 Section 8). The data hierarchy table must implement the four tiers of MCC-100 clause 8.3 for every baseline parameter class, and every choice rule must be conservative (lower credited outcome wins, MCC-100 clause 8.4). State the baseline validity (≤ MCC-200 Annex B value) and prospective-update rule.

5.1 Baseline scenario determination: ‹procedure identifying the most plausible course of events absent the project, with candidate-scenario screening and selection criteria›.

5.2 Baseline data hierarchy (mandatory table, per parameter class):

Parameter class	Tier (a) site-measured	Tier (b) regional/national measured	Tier (c) peer-reviewed published	Tier (d) conservative default (Annex T-A)	Tier-descent documentation required
‹class›	‹source/method›	‹source›	‹source›	‹default + derivation reference›	‹what must be documented to use a lower tier›

5.3 Conservativeness rule: where a range of plausible values exists for any baseline assumption, parameter or model, the value yielding the lower credited outcome SHALL be selected (MCC-100 clause 8.4); the selection record is ‹documentation requirement›.

5.4 Trends and policy effects: ‹how documented trends and reasonably foreseeable policy effects enter the baseline; static-baseline justification if used, MCC-100 clause 8.6›.

5.5 Suppressed activity: ‹prohibited, or the peer-reviewed case definition and explicit conservative cap per MCC-100 clause 8.8›.

5.6 Baseline validity and updates: validity ‹X years, ≤ the MCC-200 Annex B maximum for the family›; re-evaluation triggers per MCC-100 clause 8.7; updates apply prospectively only (MCC-100 clause 8.9).

Section 6 — Quantification (MOD-03)

Drafting instructions: state EVERY equation from raw data to credited quantity, then the full parameter table — the recomputability test (MCC-200 clause 7.6) fails if any step requires information not in this Section, Annex T-A or the monitoring data. Uncertainty: define the estimation method per parameter, the propagation method to the final quantity, and the discount function against the MCC-200 Annex B threshold. State the ordered deductions exactly per MCC-100 clause 9.9 and the round-down rule at each step. Split-ledger methodologies: duplicate 6.1–6.6 per ledger.

6.1 Quantification equations:

‹Equation 1: name, formula, term definitions›
‹Equation 2: ...›
...
‹Final equation: Credited quantity before deductions›

6.2 Parameter table (mandatory; one row per parameter):

Symbol	Parameter	Unit	Source (data hierarchy tier)	Measurement method	Frequency	Default (if any; Annex T-A ref.)	Uncertainty treatment
‹sym›	‹name›	‹SI/metric unit›	‹tier + source›	‹method›	‹frequency›	‹value or "None"›	‹method›

6.3 GWP values: the AR6 100-year values listed in MCC-200 Annex B-2 for the gases ‹list›, cited per gas in the table above. ‹GHG methodologies only.›

6.4 Uncertainty: estimation method per parameter ‹method›; propagation to the credited quantity ‹method, e.g. error propagation or Monte Carlo with stated settings›; this methodology's uncertainty threshold is ‹X per cent — fixed by this methodology and SHALL NOT exceed the MCC-200 Annex B-4 ceiling›; where the half-width of the 90 per cent confidence interval exceeds that threshold, the discount function ‹function — at least linear in the excess› SHALL be applied before the buffer step.

6.5 Missing data: per monitored parameter class, the substitution procedure ‹procedure›, each demonstrably conservative; missing data SHALL never increase the credited quantity, and where no conservative substitution exists the affected quantity SHALL NOT be credited (MCC-100 clause 9.5).

6.6 Ordered deductions and rounding: the sequence of MCC-100 clause 9.9 — (a) conservative quantification; (b) leakage (Section 7); (c) uncertainty discount (6.4); (d) buffer deduction (Section 9, stored-carbon only) — with every rounding step rounded down at ‹stated precision› (MCC-100 clause 9.8); the issued quantity is expressed in whole units only (MCC-100 clause 4.11).

6.7 Worked example: Annex T-B contains a complete worked example from input data to issued quantity, reproducible independently (MCC-200 clause 6.7).

Section 7 — Leakage (MOD-03)

Drafting instructions: identify every plausible mechanism for THIS activity type — activity-shifting, market, ecological, cross-programme displacement (MCC-200 clause 14.4) — with quantification and monitoring for each; "not material" requires documented reasons (MCC-100 clause 10.2). Leakage is deducted in full, never buffered.

7.1 Leakage mechanisms (mandatory table):

#	Mechanism	Description for this activity	Quantification procedure	Monitoring indicator(s)	Deduction rule
L1	Activity-shifting	‹description›	‹procedure›	‹indicators›	Deducted in full in the period incurred
L2	Market leakage	‹description or reasoned immateriality›	‹procedure›	‹indicators›	‹rule›
L3	Ecological leakage	‹description›	‹procedure›	‹indicators›	‹rule›
L4	Cross-programme displacement	‹description›	‹procedure›	‹indicators›	‹rule›

7.2 Monitored leakage exceeding the projection increases the deduction for the current and subsequent periods (MCC-100 clause 10.4); where periodic leakage exceeds the credited outcome, no unit is issued and the excess carries forward (MCC-100 clause 10.6).

Section 8 — Overlap and double counting (MOD-02/MOD-05)

Drafting instructions: implement MCC-200 Section 14. Identification duty, reconciliation-before-registration rule (never baseline adjustment alone), allocation rule where the activity also serves an external scheme, and the disclosure duties.

8.1 Overlap identification: ‹procedure and sources for identifying every other programme, scheme or arrangement in or overlapping the boundary›.

8.2 Overlap resolution: rights, boundary, registry and claim reconciliation per MCC-100 clause 17.4 before registration and issuance; ‹methodology-specific reconciliation evidence›.

8.3 Allocation rule: ‹rule preventing duplicate issuance/use/claim where the activity also satisfies an external obligation or scheme, MCC-200 clause 14.5›.

8.4 Disclosure: at submission and annually per MCC-100 clause 17.5.

Section 9 — Permanence, durability class and reversal risk (MOD-08)

Drafting instructions: stored-carbon methodologies (F01, F02, stored-carbon F03 components) only — otherwise mark "Not applicable" with the MCC-200 clause 9.6 reason. Never state a durability horizon exceeding the enforceable commitment period (MCC-100 clause 11.3); do not name durability classes here — they come from the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard. Define the project-level INPUTS to the Non-Permanence Risk Tool and the evidence for each.

9.1 Durability class assignment: each project SHALL be assigned a durability class from the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard's classification, on the following activity-specific evidence: ‹evidence classes›.

9.2 Enforceable commitment period: the project SHALL evidence, per MCC-100 clause 11.2: binding legal commitments ‹documentation standard›; secured tenure or use rights ‹standard›; funded monitoring ‹standard›; reversal-liability arrangements ‹standard›. No durability claim exceeds the period evidenced.

9.3 Non-Permanence Risk Tool inputs (mandatory table):

Risk factor	Project evidence required	Treatment if unassessable
‹natural disturbance — activity-specific hazards›	‹evidence›	Maximum risk assumed
‹tenure/legal›	‹evidence›	Maximum risk assumed
‹financial viability›	‹evidence›	Maximum risk assumed
‹management capacity›	‹evidence›	Maximum risk assumed
‹community dependence/support›	‹evidence›	Maximum risk assumed

9.4 Reversal monitoring and reporting: detection parameters and methods for the full enforceable commitment period ‹parameters›; suspected reversals reported within thirty calendar days (MCC-100 clause 11.7); reversal quantification method ‹method›. Compensation is governed by MCC-700 clause 16.7 and is not varied here.

9.5 Buffer participation: buffer deduction per the completed and verified risk assessment (MCC-100 clause 11.10); no issuance on an incomplete assessment; flow-based and MCC-MOU outcomes do not participate (MCC-200 clause 9.7).

Section 10 — Monitoring plan requirements (MOD-04)

Drafting instructions: this Section is the template for each project's monitoring plan (MCC-200 clause 7.7). The parameter table must cover every monitored parameter in Section 6.2 marked as monitored. Sampling designs must be statistical with stated confidence/precision targets (MCC-100 clause 12.3). Include the QA/QC procedure and the chain-of-custody rule.

10.1 Monitored parameters (mandatory table):

Symbol	Parameter	Measurement method and instrument class	Accuracy specification	Calibration requirement	Sampling design (confidence/precision)	Frequency	Data owner	QA/QC control
‹sym›	‹name›	‹method›	‹spec›	‹requirement›	‹design›	‹frequency›	‹role›	‹control›

10.2 Remote sensing ‹if permitted›: sensor classes ‹list›; minimum resolution ‹value›; classification method ‹method›; accuracy assessment ‹method and threshold›; ground-truthing frequency ‹frequency› (MCC-100 clause 12.5). ‹Otherwise: "Remote sensing is not permitted under this methodology."›

10.3 QA/QC procedure: data collection, transcription, storage, calculation, review and correction controls with named responsibilities (MCC-100 clause 9.7): ‹procedure›.

10.4 Chain of custody and data lineage: every monitored data point SHALL carry documented lineage from original observation (field measurement, sensor record, laboratory result or remote-sensing scene) to the value used in quantification (MCC-100 clause 12.4): ‹lineage record specification — identifiers, timestamps, custody transfers, storage›. Original observations are preserved; corrections are logged, never overwritten (MCC-100 clause 12.6).

10.5 Monitoring report content and frequency: per MCC-100 clauses 12.7–12.8, at ‹frequency›; the report SHALL be complete, internally consistent and reproducible before submission for verification.

Section 11 — MRV data lineage and registry data (MOD-10)

Drafting instructions: define the data the project supplies to the registry and the end-to-end traceability from monitoring data to issued serial ranges. For split-ledger methodologies, lineage must keep the two ledgers separately traceable end-to-end (MCC-200 clause 13.9.6).

11.1 Registry data fields supplied per project and per issuance request: ‹fields — outcome quantities per ledger, monitoring period, tool versions used, uncertainty and deduction values, verification references›.

11.2 Outcome metric and unit precision ‹MCC-MOU methodologies›: metric ‹exactly one physical metric, definition and measurement basis›; precision ‹smallest unit›; no equivalence, exchange or aggregation with any other metric or with CO2e (MCC-200 clause 7.13).

11.3 End-to-end lineage: ‹specification linking monitoring records → quantification workbook/tool runs → verification statement → issuance request → serial ranges, such that any issued unit can be traced to its underlying observations›.

Section 12 — Safeguards integration (MOD-09)

Drafting instructions: implement MCC-200 clause 15.1 — list the activity-specific safeguards risks and the ESS screening trigger each raises. Do not restate the ESS Policy's process; hook into it. The risk list below must be tailored: delete inapplicable rows only with reasons, add activity-specific rows.

12.1 Activity-specific safeguards risks and screening triggers (mandatory table):

#	Risk for this activity	ESS screening trigger raised
S1	‹e.g. access restriction to fishing grounds›	‹trigger — e.g. marine tenure/livelihoods assessment›
S2	‹e.g. Indigenous Peoples' rights, waters or heritage affected›	FPIC assessment per MCC-100 clause 14.7
S3	‹e.g. labour/safety in retrieval operations›	‹trigger›
S4	‹e.g. ecosystem trade-offs of the intervention›	‹trigger›

12.2 Safeguards conformity is assessed at every validation and verification; issuance requires the safeguards clearance of MCC-100 clause 14.13. This methodology adds no safeguard relief and cannot weaken the Environmental & Social Safeguards Policy.

Section 13 — Sustainable development and co-benefit indicators (MOD-09)

Drafting instructions: implement MCC-200 clauses 15.4–15.6. Each indicator: full protocol. Each MCC-CB label: scope, indicator, period, verification. No generic SDG badges; no CO2e implication in any label.

13.1 Sustainable development indicators (mandatory table; minimum ‹n› indicators per MCC-SDCF as conformed):

Indicator	Definition	Baseline determination	Measurement protocol	Frequency	Attribution rationale	Assurance requirement	No-double-counting rule
‹indicator›	‹definition›	‹method›	‹protocol›	‹frequency›	‹rationale›	‹requirement›	‹rule›

13.2 MCC-CB labels supported ‹if any›:

Label	Co-benefit indicator	Scope	Period	Verification requirement
‹label›	‹indicator›	‹scope›	‹period›	‹requirement — separately identifiable from unit verification›

Section 14 — Validation and verification requirements (MOD-06/MOD-07)

Drafting instructions: state only methodology-specific requirements beyond MCC-100 Section 18 and MCC-400 — the matters a VVB must assess for this activity, site-inspection triggers, evidence classes. Never vary VVB competence, sampling or independence rules (MCC-200 clause 7.9); never reference AI outputs as validation/verification inputs (blind first pass, MCC-100 clause 18.7).

14.1 Methodology-specific validation scope: in addition to MCC-100 clause 18.3, the VVB SHALL assess: ‹activity-specific matters — e.g. baseline-scenario plausibility evidence, applicability condition A‹x› evidence, tool-version conformity›.

14.2 Methodology-specific verification scope: in addition to MCC-100 clause 18.4, the VVB SHALL assess: ‹activity-specific matters — e.g. lineage spot-checks on ‹parameter›, recomputation of ‹equation›, leakage indicator review›.

14.3 Site inspection triggers: ‹triggers; where omission is permitted, the documented basis per MCC-100 clause 18.9›.

14.4 ‹Split-ledger methodologies› Separate assurance objectives and materiality apply to the GHG statement and to each marine-outcome statement, with separately identifiable conclusions (MCC-100 clause 18.5); the applicable materiality thresholds are those of MCC-200 Annex B-3.

Section 15 — References

Drafting instructions: full citations for every scientific source, dataset, emission factor, standard and tool relied on anywhere in the methodology; every quantitative choice in Sections 3–10 must trace to an entry here or to Annex T-A (MCC-200 clause 6.4). No citation of an MCC document by superseded code or version.

#	Reference	Cited in
R1	‹full citation›	‹sections›

Annex T-A — Default values and derivations

Drafting instructions: every default in Section 6.2 — value, units, applicability conditions, derivation showing conservativeness, sources, review date (MCC-200 clause 6.5).

Default	Value	Unit	Applicability conditions	Derivation and conservativeness demonstration	Source(s)	Review date
‹name›	‹value›	‹unit›	‹conditions›	‹derivation›	‹refs›	‹date›

Annex T-B — Worked example and conservativeness tests

Drafting instructions: one complete worked example from input data through every equation, deduction and rounding step to the issued quantity, per ledger where split (MCC-200 clause 6.7); plus the conservativeness test record — responses to missing data, boundary values and parameter uncertainty (MCC-200 clause 6.8) — and the machine-readable test cases for each referenced tool (MCC-200 clause 6.6).

‹Worked example› ‹Conservativeness test record› ‹Tool test-case index›

Annex T-C — Template-to-module map (fixed; do not edit)

Template section	Module (MCC-200 clause 3.4)
2	MOD-01 Applicability
3, 4, 5, 8 (identification/resolution duties)	MOD-02 Boundary, baseline and additionality
6, 7, 8 (allocation rule)	MOD-03 Quantification, uncertainty and leakage
10	MOD-04 Monitoring
10.5, 8.4 (disclosures)	MOD-05 Reporting
14.1, 14.3	MOD-06 Validation
14.2, 14.4	MOD-07 Verification
9	MOD-08 Permanence, durability and risk
12, 13	MOD-09 Safeguards and co-benefits
11, 13.2 (labels), 0 (identification)	MOD-10 Registry, data and claims

Annex T-D — Dossier checklist (completed at submission for approval)

Drafting instructions: tick and reference each MCC-200 Section 11 dossier element; an unticked row blocks advancement (MCC-200 clause 11.1). Elements (k) and (l) are completed by the Programme, not the proponent.

#	Dossier element (MCC-200 clause 11.2)	Present?	Reference
a	Complete methodology text on this Template	[ ]	‹ref›
b	Complete quantification module incl. tools at exact versions with test cases, and worked example	[ ]	‹ref›
c	Uncertainty analysis and conservativeness test record	[ ]	‹ref›
d	Applicability conditions with evidence standards	[ ]	‹ref›
e	Monitoring plan template	[ ]	‹ref›
f	Validation/verification requirements (incl. split assurance objectives where applicable)	[ ]	‹ref›
g	Permanence/risk module with Non-Permanence Risk Tool inputs (stored-carbon only)	[ ]	‹ref›
h	Safeguards and SD indicator protocols	[ ]	‹ref›
i	Pilot evidence (where required)	[ ]	‹ref›
j	Peer-review record with responses	[ ]	‹ref›
k	Public consultation record	[ ]	‹ref›
l	Signed adoption instrument (Evidence Register link)	[ ]	‹ref›

---

End of MCC-200-T1 v1.0-draft. Status: DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION. Adopted together with, or after, MCC-200 v3.0 (its clause 17.4); until adoption, no methodology draft advances beyond CONCEPT.