32 of 128 values fetched.

• Regulating

  Climate regulation (ocean carbon uptake)

  Concern

  Surface water sits 43 µatm above the atmosphere, so the site currently releases CO2.

  Surface pCO2: no model value at this site.

• Provisioning

  Food provisioning (productivity)

  No data

  No productivity data at this site.

  Net primary production: no model value at this site.

  Chlorophyll-a: no model value at this site.

• Supporting

  Habitat for marine life (oxygen)

  Stable

  Lowest seasonal oxygen is 205 mmol/m³.

  Dissolved oxygen: no model value at this site.

• Supporting

  Thermal refuge (heat stress)

  No data

  No temperature data at this site.

  Sea surface temperature: no model value at this site.

  Seabed temperature: no model value at this site.

• Supporting

  Shell and reef building (acidification)

  No data

  No pH data at this site.

  pH: no model value at this site.

• Regulating

  Water quality (nutrient balance)

  No data

  No nutrient data at this site.

  Nitrate: no model value at this site.

  Chlorophyll-a: no model value at this site.

Indicative condition of ecosystem services from model reanalysis, not a monetary valuation or a field survey. Four months per period, so single-year anomalies can move the result. The full monthly record lives in Ocean intelligence.

• 0Problem definition and evidence baseNot provided · SCI.problem0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate problem definition and evidence base?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for problem definition and evidence base with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve problem definition and evidence base.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate problem definition and evidence base.

  Fields read: Problem statement, overview, industry/context, references

  Add evidence
• 0Theory of change and causal mechanismNot provided · SCI.theory0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate theory of change and causal mechanism?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for theory of change and causal mechanism with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve theory of change and causal mechanism.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate theory of change and causal mechanism.

  Fields read: Mission/objectives, hypothesis/methodology, expected outcomes

  Add evidence
• 0Methods and experimental appropriatenessNot provided · SCI.methods0.00 / 4

  To what extent does the project substantiate methods and experimental appropriateness?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for methods and experimental appropriateness with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve methods and experimental appropriateness.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate methods and experimental appropriateness.

  Fields read: Hypothesis/methodology, details, supporting documents

  Add evidence
• 0Uncertainty, transferability and limitationsNot provided · SCI.uncertainty0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate uncertainty, transferability and limitations?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for uncertainty, transferability and limitations with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve uncertainty, transferability and limitations.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate uncertainty, transferability and limitations.

  Fields read: Risks, details, evidence

  Add evidence
• 0Testability and expert scrutinyNot provided · SCI.testability0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate testability and expert scrutiny?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for testability and expert scrutiny with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve testability and expert scrutiny.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate testability and expert scrutiny.

  Fields read: Aims, methodology, team, documents

  Add evidence
• 0Outcome specificity and beneficiary definitionNot provided · IMP.outcomes0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate outcome specificity and beneficiary definition?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for outcome specificity and beneficiary definition with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve outcome specificity and beneficiary definition.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate outcome specificity and beneficiary definition.

  Fields read: Expected outcomes, location, mission

  Add evidence
• 0Contribution, counterfactual and additionality logicNot provided · IMP.causality0.00 / 4

  To what extent does the project substantiate contribution, counterfactual and additionality logic?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for contribution, counterfactual and additionality logic with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve contribution, counterfactual and additionality logic.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate contribution, counterfactual and additionality logic.

  Fields read: Overview, methodology, environmental commitments

  Add evidence
• 0Negative impacts, leakage and trade-offsNot provided · IMP.externalities0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate negative impacts, leakage and trade-offs?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for negative impacts, leakage and trade-offs with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve negative impacts, leakage and trade-offs.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate negative impacts, leakage and trade-offs.

  Fields read: Risks, environmental commitments, project details

  Add evidence
• 0Permanence, durability and unintended effectsNot provided · IMP.durability0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate permanence, durability and unintended effects?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for permanence, durability and unintended effects with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve permanence, durability and unintended effects.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate permanence, durability and unintended effects.

  Fields read: Roadmap, outcomes, risk plan

  Add evidence
• 0Indicator relevance and operational definitionsNot provided · MRV.indicators0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate indicator relevance and operational definitions?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for indicator relevance and operational definitions with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve indicator relevance and operational definitions.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate indicator relevance and operational definitions.

  Fields read: Environmental commitments, aims, outcomes

  Add evidence
• 0Baseline and counterfactual observation planNot provided · MRV.baseline0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate baseline and counterfactual observation plan?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for baseline and counterfactual observation plan with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve baseline and counterfactual observation plan.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate baseline and counterfactual observation plan.

  Fields read: Location, methodology, evidence

  Add evidence
• 0Sampling, sensors and EO fitness for purposeNot provided · MRV.sampling0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate sampling, sensors and eo fitness for purpose?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for sampling, sensors and eo fitness for purpose with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve sampling, sensors and eo fitness for purpose.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate sampling, sensors and eo fitness for purpose.

  Fields read: Location, methodology, evidence, monitoring plan

  Add evidence
• 0Data quality, provenance and custodyNot provided · MRV.provenance0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate data quality, provenance and custody?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for data quality, provenance and custody with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve data quality, provenance and custody.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate data quality, provenance and custody.

  Fields read: Documents, updates, evidence links

  Add evidence
• 0Monitoring governance and verification pathwayNot provided · MRV.verification0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate monitoring governance and verification pathway?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for monitoring governance and verification pathway with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve monitoring governance and verification pathway.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate monitoring governance and verification pathway.

  Fields read: Team, roadmap, updates

  Add evidence
• 1Legitimate owner and accountable governanceSelf-reported · GOV.authority0.75 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate legitimate owner and accountable governance?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • Project lead named: Kwame Mensah

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for legitimate owner and accountable governance with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve legitimate owner and accountable governance.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate legitimate owner and accountable governance.

  Fields read: Owner/organisation, project team, documents

  Add evidence
• 0Financial flow disclosure and controlsNot provided · GOV.financial0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate financial flow disclosure and controls?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for financial flow disclosure and controls with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve financial flow disclosure and controls.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate financial flow disclosure and controls.

  Fields read: Funding rounds, goal, budget, risks

  Add evidence
• 0Legal and environmental safeguardsNot provided · GOV.compliance0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate legal and environmental safeguards?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for legal and environmental safeguards with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve legal and environmental safeguards.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate legal and environmental safeguards.

  Fields read: Risks, location, docs, commitments

  Add evidence
• 0Disclosure, conflict management and correctionNot provided · GOV.audit0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate disclosure, conflict management and correction?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for disclosure, conflict management and correction with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve disclosure, conflict management and correction.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate disclosure, conflict management and correction.

  Fields read: Project updates, team, documents

  Add evidence
• 1Affected stakeholder identification and co-designSelf-reported · COM.stakeholders0.75 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate affected stakeholder identification and co-design?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • Stakeholders: the project text mentions "Fishers"

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for affected stakeholder identification and co-design with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve affected stakeholder identification and co-design.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate affected stakeholder identification and co-design.

  Fields read: Community impact, team, overview

  Add evidence
• 0Rights, consent and procedural fairnessNot provided · COM.rights0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate rights, consent and procedural fairness?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for rights, consent and procedural fairness with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve rights, consent and procedural fairness.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate rights, consent and procedural fairness.

  Fields read: Location, community impact, documents

  Add evidence
• 0Equitable benefit-sharing and adverse distributionNot provided · COM.benefits0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate equitable benefit-sharing and adverse distribution?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for equitable benefit-sharing and adverse distribution with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve equitable benefit-sharing and adverse distribution.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate equitable benefit-sharing and adverse distribution.

  Fields read: Community impact, outcomes, risks

  Add evidence
• 1Local capacity and longer-term participationSelf-reported · COM.capacity0.50 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate local capacity and longer-term participation?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • Capacity: the project text mentions "Traditional Knowledge"

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for local capacity and longer-term participation with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve local capacity and longer-term participation.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate local capacity and longer-term participation.

  Fields read: Education model, community impact, roadmap

  Add evidence
• 0Methods openness and reproducibilityNot provided · OPEN.methods0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate methods openness and reproducibility?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for methods openness and reproducibility with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve methods openness and reproducibility.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate methods openness and reproducibility.

  Fields read: Methodology, educational resources, documents

  Add evidence
• 0FAIR data management and metadataNot provided · OPEN.data0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate fair data management and metadata?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for fair data management and metadata with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve fair data management and metadata.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate fair data management and metadata.

  Fields read: Documents, updates, evidence links

  Add evidence
• 1CARE, sensitive data and Indigenous knowledge safeguardsSelf-reported · OPEN.care0.50 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate care, sensitive data and indigenous knowledge safeguards?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • Data care: the project text mentions "Traditional Knowledge"

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for care, sensitive data and indigenous knowledge safeguards with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve care, sensitive data and indigenous knowledge safeguards.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate care, sensitive data and indigenous knowledge safeguards.

  Fields read: Community impact, privacy/data plan

  Add evidence
• 1Knowledge sharing and accessible communicationSelf-reported · OPEN.knowledge0.50 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate knowledge sharing and accessible communication?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • The project is publicly listed on OCIS

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for knowledge sharing and accessible communication with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve knowledge sharing and accessible communication.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate knowledge sharing and accessible communication.

  Fields read: Education model, updates, results

  Add evidence
• 0Milestones, deliverables and success conditionsNot provided · FEAS.milestones0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate milestones, deliverables and success conditions?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for milestones, deliverables and success conditions with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve milestones, deliverables and success conditions.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate milestones, deliverables and success conditions.

  Fields read: Roadmap, rounds, objectives

  Add evidence
• 0Infrastructure, procurement and operational feasibilityNot provided · FEAS.resources0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate infrastructure, procurement and operational feasibility?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for infrastructure, procurement and operational feasibility with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve infrastructure, procurement and operational feasibility.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate infrastructure, procurement and operational feasibility.

  Fields read: Details, team, roadmap

  Add evidence
• 1Schedule, critical path and contingenciesSelf-reported · FEAS.timeline0.50 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate schedule, critical path and contingencies?

  Rating 1: Self-asserted with critical gaps.

  Evidence found

  • Project start and end dates are recorded

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for schedule, critical path and contingencies with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve schedule, critical path and contingencies.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate schedule, critical path and contingencies.

  Fields read: Roadmap, risks

  Add evidence
• 0Adaptive management and change controlNot provided · FEAS.learning0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate adaptive management and change control?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for adaptive management and change control with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve adaptive management and change control.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate adaptive management and change control.

  Fields read: Updates, roadmap, risks

  Add evidence
• 0Budget realism and traceabilityNot provided · FIN.budget0.00 / 3

  To what extent does the project substantiate budget realism and traceability?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for budget realism and traceability with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve budget realism and traceability.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate budget realism and traceability.

  Fields read: Funding rounds, budget, rewards, roadmap

  Add evidence
• 0Funding adequacy, continuity and OPEXNot provided · FIN.runway0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate funding adequacy, continuity and opex?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for funding adequacy, continuity and opex with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve funding adequacy, continuity and opex.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate funding adequacy, continuity and opex.

  Fields read: Rounds, funding goal, timeline

  Add evidence
• 0Financial management and donor protectionsNot provided · FIN.controls0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate financial management and donor protections?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for financial management and donor protections with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve financial management and donor protections.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate financial management and donor protections.

  Fields read: Governance docs, rounds, risks

  Add evidence
• 0Complete material risk registerNot provided · RISK.register0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate complete material risk register?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for complete material risk register with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve complete material risk register.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate complete material risk register.

  Fields read: Risks, commitments

  Add evidence
• 0Mitigation owners and residual riskNot provided · RISK.response0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate mitigation owners and residual risk?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for mitigation owners and residual risk with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve mitigation owners and residual risk.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate mitigation owners and residual risk.

  Fields read: Risks, team, roadmap

  Add evidence
• 0Scenario and climate resilience planningNot provided · RISK.stress0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate scenario and climate resilience planning?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for scenario and climate resilience planning with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve scenario and climate resilience planning.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate scenario and climate resilience planning.

  Fields read: Location, methodology, risks

  Add evidence
• 0Evidence of fit-for-purpose expertiseNot provided · TEAM.skill0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate evidence of fit-for-purpose expertise?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for evidence of fit-for-purpose expertise with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve evidence of fit-for-purpose expertise.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate evidence of fit-for-purpose expertise.

  Fields read: Project team, biographies, linked profiles

  Add evidence
• 0Delivery roles and third-party accountabilityNot provided · TEAM.partners0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate delivery roles and third-party accountability?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for delivery roles and third-party accountability with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve delivery roles and third-party accountability.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate delivery roles and third-party accountability.

  Fields read: Project team, organisations, roadmap

  Add evidence
• 0Substantive outcomes linked to UN and Ocean Decade prioritiesNot provided · POL.mapping0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate substantive outcomes linked to un and ocean decade priorities?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for substantive outcomes linked to un and ocean decade priorities with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve substantive outcomes linked to un and ocean decade priorities.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate substantive outcomes linked to un and ocean decade priorities.

  Fields read: SDGs, tags, objectives, environmental commitments

  Add evidence
• 0Claims and reporting controlsNot provided · EVID.claims0.00 / 2

  To what extent does the project substantiate claims and reporting controls?

  Rating 0: Absent, contradicted, or no relevant evidence.

  Evidence found

  None. Missing evidence scores 0 and is never inferred.

  Gap

  Explain missing or contradictory evidence for claims and reporting controls with cited references.

  Next action

  Identify the smallest verifiable action to improve claims and reporting controls.

  How to validate

  Specify an artefact, independent check, or monitored indicator that would substantiate claims and reporting controls.

  Fields read: Project updates, results, report evidence

  Add evidence