Code register

The taxonomy MCC-TAX-2026-001 Part A directs every Programme surface to cite. Its register row still reads styreratifisering utestaaende.

Accreditation scopes are issued against this table, so a body accredited for "F04" is accredited for coral reef.

MCC-TAX-2026-001 B.3 recommends these boundaries on the merits while holding that the authority must go the Definitions Register's way. The two are not in tension: the Board amends the Register to these boundaries.

The applicant wizard displayed the E2 codes with the MCC_ prefix stripped, so an E2 code rendered as an E1 code. Corrected 8 September 2026.

Assigned the instrument code MCC-HYB, which FD-2026-09-03 item D1 abolished with no successor. An applicant admitted here could not be issued anything, which is why MCC-TAX-2026-001 A.2 closed it.

MCC-200 v2.0 carries two family taxonomies in one document. Its cll. 0013 and 0016 and its cl. 0031.1 do not agree, and the successor draft calls these "the contradictory family names in clauses 0031.1-0031.2".

A fee band is a price. This is the taxonomy the applicant pays under.

The reason D2 is better law: avoided-loss crediting is where the integrity risk in blue carbon sits, and D2 gates it on an approved baseline, additionality and leakage method. The Register puts removals and avoided loss in one undifferentiated family.

The inverse of what the Definitions Register calls F03. The reviewer guide carried this meaning, in a document written for the people who check the Programme's work.

Contradicts cl. 0014 of the same instrument.

F03 inverts against the Register. The seed migration is explicit: "Mapping this back would be an outright falsehood."

The only source that names gear loss prevention in F03, which is where the single approved methodology belongs on activity.

This is the only in-force source that puts ghost gear in the pollution family. The single approved methodology sits here because of it.

Also assigned MCC-HYB and closed with F02 for the same reason.

Contradicts cl. 0016 of the same instrument.

Kelp appears in three of the five served family guidance documents as well — F01, F02 and F05.

F05 widens silently against the platform's F05. The migration that seeded it admits this in terms: "Same code, wider meaning." That is the worst case for a serial number that embeds the family code and can never be altered.

The same code names a carbon credit in one in-force instrument and a conservation credit in another. The registry standard is the one that prints serial numbers.

A third printed meaning, and the only one that names a technology.

A database trigger refuses to write it. The in-force taxonomy nonetheless requires it for two of five families, which is the whole of why MCC-TAX-2026-001 closed F02 and F05: an applicant admitted there could not be issued anything. Replaced by MCC-CC where a carbon methodology exists, plus a co-benefit label.

Two methodology register rows still carry this code today. Retired is not absent: the value is in the register and in the enum.

Calling a marine outcome unit "avoided emissions" is prohibited under the claims matrix. The same code is a non-carbon unit in one clause and an emissions unit in another, which is the difference between a contribution claim and an offset claim.

No instrument makes this substitution. The wizard's own comment recorded the problem honestly and then resolved it by choosing an answer. Corrected under MCC-TAX-2026-001 Part F.

The only two codes on which the standard and the register describe the same activity are M001 and M002.

The F01 methodologies draft records that this conflict must be resolved before that text is adopted, "because until it is, M003 does not identify a methodology".

This is the M003 with a candidate text. The standard that locks M003 describes a different methodology entirely.

PAR-2026-001 F1, the coral calcification sign error, is confirmed verbatim in this clause. Because no coral methodology ever existed in the register, the error was never implemented, never issued against and never available to a project.

Retired 24 August 2026. Whether that retirement breached MCC-200 cl. 0118 — Board supermajority and 24-month notice for a locked methodology — turns entirely on which M004 was retired, and so is not answerable. That is the finding: not that a rule was broken, but that compliance is undecidable on the face of the record.

A core blue-carbon avoided-loss methodology. Against the served instrument, FD-2026-08-24 item D14 retired this.

Against the register, item D14 retired this — an umbrella item arguably never properly inside the locked portfolio, which is the "umbrella-rens" the decision describes. Carries the abolished MCC-HYB instrument.

Five of the ten locked codes - M003, M004, M005, M006 and M008 - denote a different methodology in the served standard than in the register. Three more (M007, M009, M010) have no register row at all, so they denote nothing there rather than something different. PAR-2026-001 WP-J s.2.1 states the first group as "M003 to M008", which counts six and includes M007; and says four codes have no row where its own table shows three. Both are recorded rather than repeated.

The most serious of the six. M008 is the Programme's only approved methodology and both project rows sit in its family. An assessor reading the framework and then the register finds two different M008s, and the one they can verify is not the one the standard locks.

APPROVED. The two projects in the lifecycle are both registered against this. Its activity is gear, so under the canonical map its family is fisheries and gear, not pollution — the control table assigns "M008" to the pollution family because it is describing the framework's M008, which is a plastic-mass methodology.