How the rubric evolved across versions.
A side-by-side view of how Terminal Carbon's four-pillar methodology has tightened across v1.0, v1.1 and v1.2. This page compares the rubric — not specific listed projects — so buyers can see exactly what changed and why.
This page compares the rubric itself, not scores of specific listed projects. We do not retroactively re-score listed credits under earlier methodology versions. Per-project historical scoring under prior versions is on our roadmap — see Data sources for the changelog.
What changed, criterion by criterion.
| Pillar | Criterion | v1.0 | v1.1 | v1.2 (current) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additionality | Financial test threshold Each version raised the bar for what counts as financially non-viable without carbon revenue. | IRR < market hurdle rate | IRR < hurdle + 2pp bufferTighter | IRR + sensitivity bands (±2pp)Tighter |
| Additionality | Common practice cutoff Tighter penetration thresholds reduce the risk of crediting business-as-usual activity. | <20% adoption in region | <15% adoptionTighter | <10% adoption + activity-class subsetTighter |
| Permanence | Minimum buffer pool v1.2 ties the buffer to durability tier instead of a one-size-fits-all percentage. | 10% flat | 10% flat | Tier-aware: 10% (geological) → 60% (short-rotation nature)Tighter |
| Permanence | Reversal risk model v1.2 incorporates forward-looking physical-risk projections, not just historic incidents. | Self-declared by project | Registry-published risk class | Climate-adjusted (fire/drought IPCC scenarios)New |
| Leakage | Activity-shifting discount Adds country-level deforestation pressure on top of the base discount. | Project-declared | Standardised by project type | Standardised + jurisdictional overlayTighter |
| Leakage | Market leakage (commodity) v1.1 introduced market leakage; v1.2 extended it to fuel-substitution projects. | Not applied | Commodity elasticity discountNew | Commodity elasticity + cookstove fuel-stackingTighter |
| MRV | Verification recency Tighter recency window ensures monitoring data reflects current site conditions. | Last verification ≤ 36 months | ≤ 36 months | ≤ 24 monthsTighter |
| MRV | VVB credibility Aligns with the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles framework that matured through 2025. | Registry-accredited only | Accredited + ICVCM-aligned scoringNew | Accredited + ICVCM CCP integrationTighter |
| MRV | Remote sensing requirement Satellite cross-checks reduce reliance on self-reported plot inventories at scale. | Optional | Recommended for AFOLU | Required for AFOLU >10k haTighter |
Illustrative Indonesian REDD+ project
2023 vintage, 50,000 hectares, 20-year crediting period. The walk-through below shows how the same hypothetical project would be treated under each methodology version. It is illustrative only — not based on any specific listed project.
| Pillar | Under v1.0 | Under v1.1 | Under v1.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Additionality | Pass — IRR 6% vs 9% hurdle | Pass — within new 2pp buffer | Pass with note — sensitivity flags timber-price upside |
| Permanence | 10% buffer applied | 10% buffer applied | 35% buffer (medium-durability nature, fire-risk uplift) |
| Leakage | No market leakage discount | −12% market leakage (palm-oil elasticity) | −18% (commodity + jurisdictional deforestation pressure) |
| MRV | Last verified 2021 — passes 36-month rule | Same — ICVCM scoring adds credibility uplift | Fails 24-month recency — re-verification required to retain rating |
The same project moves from a comfortable rating under v1.0 to a constrained rating under v1.2, primarily because of (a) the durability-tier buffer, (b) the new market-leakage discount, and (c) the tighter verification recency rule. None of these changes invalidate the credits — they tighten the integrity bar going forward.
All version data on this page reflects Terminal Carbon's published methodology changelog. References to ICVCM, Verra, Gold Standard and other standards describe alignment with their public frameworks and do not imply endorsement.