MvF — Methodology Verification Framework

What is an MvF?

A Methodology Verification Framework (MvF) is the specification document that defines what and how to measure, report, and verify environmental impact for a given dMRV methodology. It translates the scientific basis of a methodology into structured, testable verification requirements.

The MvF sits between the methodology's scientific foundation and its software implementation:

Methodology (scientific basis) → MvF (verification specification) → MvA (software implementation)

While the methodology describes the environmental claim and the science behind it, the MvF specifies exactly which data must be collected, what conditions must be met, and which formulas must be applied to verify that claim. The MvA then implements those specifications as executable code.

Components of an MvF

An MvF document contains these interconnected components that together define the complete verification procedure:

Design for verification

The MvF is written with a core principle: design for verification. Every rule, criterion, and parameter must be expressed so that someone — whether the MvA in automated execution or an auditor in independent review — can determine, based on evidence, whether the requirement was met.

This means:

• No ambiguity — No room for multiple interpretations
• Event-structured — What needs to be verified at each stage
• Evidence-oriented — What proves each requirement
• Digitally compatible — What the platform can validate automatically and what requires audit or inspection

Traceability matrix

The MvF must include a Traceability Matrix as a mandatory artifact. This matrix connects every requirement from the validated third-party methodology to the corresponding operational element in the MvF.

For each requirement, the matrix maps:

External requirement (methodology section, version, clause) → MvF section → Associated dMRV events → Required evidence → Planned validations → Expected outputs

The matrix makes the methodological translation transparent and auditable — any reviewer can trace the complete path from the external reference to the operational implementation. It also reduces friction for the MvA Developer, because it minimizes ambiguity during implementation.

For the full specification of what each MvF section must contain, see the MvF Minimum Structure reference.

Digital vs. audit evidence

A robust dMRV requires clarity about how each requirement is proven. The MvF must explicitly declare the evidence regime, distinguishing:

• Digital evidence — Evidence whose robustness can be sustained by digital trails, metadata, and cross-event consistency, allowing deterministic validation by the MvA. Example: a weighing record with weight, unit, timestamp, geolocation, and balance type.

• Audit/inspection evidence — Evidence that, by its nature, criticality, or risk, cannot be confirmed with confidence through digital records alone. Example: physical facility conditions, material composition, instrument calibration.

The MvF specifies, for each event, which minimum metadata makes evidence acceptable, which digital validations apply, and which triggers escalate to audit. See the MvF Minimum Structure for the full evidence policy specification.

How an MvF connects to the platform

The MvF is the authoritative specification that the platform implements:

1. Each validation rule in the MvF becomes an independent rule processor in the MvA — a Lambda function that evaluates MassID documents.
2. The orchestration engine routes incoming documents to the correct set of application rules (in the MvA) based on the methodology.
3. Each rule returns PASSED (with an explanation of what was verified) or FAILED (with the specific reason).
4. When all rules pass, a certificate is issued and credits are minted.

The MvF establishes the contract: if the MvA faithfully implements every rule in the MvF, the platform's verification results are scientifically valid and auditable.

The MvF Author role

MvF Authors are environmental scientists, methodology experts, or organizations with domain expertise in the methodology's environmental claim. Writing an MvF requires:

• Deep understanding of the environmental science and measurement approaches
• Familiarity with relevant international standards (e.g., UNFCCC CDM methodologies, IPCC guidelines)
• Ability to translate scientific requirements into discrete, testable rules
• Knowledge of the Carrot dMRV Standard requirements

An MvF Author produces three deliverables: the framework document itself, a traceability matrix linking every requirement to verification logic, and verification guidelines for Network Integrators.

See the MvF Author Guide for the step-by-step process.

Example: BOLD Recycling MvF

The BOLD Recycling methodology's MvF (v1.0.1) demonstrates these components in practice:

• Scope: Organic waste diversion from landfills to aerobic composting in Brazil
• Eligibility: Accredited waste generators, haulers, processors, and recyclers with valid documentation
• Validation rules: Rules covering document validation, actor identification, weighing, geolocation, manifests, accreditation, and integrity checks
• Formulas: Credit quantification based on verified composted mass; reward distribution percentages by actor type
• Traceability: Every rule links to a specific section of the framework document

See the full BOLD Recycling rules catalog and framework specification.

Geographic adaptability

A single methodology can apply to multiple territories — and in most cases, it will. The scientific basis and core quantification logic remain the same, but the regulatory context, material classifications, documentation requirements, and technical parameters vary by region. The MvF is designed to accommodate this variation from the start rather than hard-coding assumptions from a single jurisdiction.

The guiding principle is design for adaptability: the MvF separates universal elements (valid for any territory) from elements that must be parameterized per geography, allowing the framework to maintain structural integrity while accommodating necessary variations through a companion artifact: the Geographic Annex.

Why geographic adaptability matters

Adaptability manifests across four dimensions:

1. Regulatory — Each territory has its own legal framework governing the methodology's activity. Environmental licensing, operational permits, and compliance obligations differ by jurisdiction. A rule that says "the participant must hold a valid environmental license" cannot be implemented deterministically at global scale unless the MvF specifies that the license type, issuing authority, and validation fields come from a territorial source.

2. Material classification — Waste taxonomies are local: Brazil uses the Lista Brasileira de Resíduos Sólidos, the EU uses the European List of Waste (6-digit codes), the US uses RCRA categories. An eligibility rule referencing "official waste classification" is universal in intent but territorial in operationalization.

3. Technical parameters — Emission factors, climatic coefficients, infrastructure standards, and reference values vary by geography. A methane avoidance methodology may use factors from a national GHG inventory or IPCC defaults — the choice directly impacts credit quantities.

4. Evidence and documentation — Documents that support the chain of custody differ by country. The Brazilian MTR (Manifesto de Transporte de Resíduos) has no equivalent name or structure in other jurisdictions. The MvF must specify the functional requirement and delegate the formal document specification to the Geographic Annex.

Universal vs. territorial elements

Each MvF element is classified as:

• Universal — Definition and verification conditions are jurisdiction-independent. Examples: "recorded weight must be greater than zero," "each MassID must reference exactly one recycler," "composting interval must be between 60 and 180 days." These derive from the methodology's logic, not local legislation.

• Territorial — Intent is universal, but operationalization depends on local context. Examples: "participant must hold a valid environmental license" (license type is territorial), "waste must belong to the eligible subtypes list" (classification codes are territorial), "transport manifest must be present" (document format is territorial).

When an element is classified as territorial, the MvF must provide: the functional requirement (what the rule demands in terms of outcome, regardless of territory) and the indication that the operational specification will be detailed in the applicable Geographic Annex. Optionally, a default value applies when no annex exists for that territory.

Authoring for adaptability

Three habits produce adaptable MvFs:

1. Write rules in functional terms first — Instead of "the participant must hold a Licença Ambiental de Operação issued by the competent state environmental agency" (operational, Brazil-specific), write "the participant must hold a valid environmental operating license issued by the competent authority in the territory of application, as specified in the applicable Geographic Annex." The first works only in Brazil; the second works anywhere.

2. Classify every element in tabular artifacts — The Validation Rules Table, Calculations & Parameters Table, and Evidence Policy must include a Geographic Scope column (Universal or Territorial). This tells the MvA Developer which rules are fixed and which must consult the Geographic Annex for local values.

3. Declare Geographic Annex interface points — In every MvF section containing territorial elements, indicate what the annex must provide. For example, in the Eligibility section: "the applicable Geographic Annex must specify the required environmental license type, the issuing authority, the validation fields, and the acceptable validity period."

Geographic Annexes

A Geographic Annex contextualizes the MvF for a specific territory. It is built separately from the framework, can be added, updated, or replaced without modifying the MvF, and is designed to be self-contained — the MvF plus a Geographic Annex forms a complete, implementable specification for a given market.

A typical annex covers seven adaptation dimensions:

1. Regulatory and legislative mapping for the methodology's activity
2. Material classification with translation between local taxonomy and MvF categories
3. Operational compliance requirements (licenses, permits, reporting obligations)
4. Additionality and baseline analysis in the territorial context
5. Technical parameter adaptation (emission factors, climatic coefficients, local reference values)
6. Territorial eligibility criteria (translating MvF functional requirements into local operational requirements)
7. Interoperability mapping with local systems (transport manifests, environmental registries, reporting infrastructure)

For example, a composting methodology might have:

• A Brazil annex — covering Ibama licensing, MTR transport manifests, and the Brazilian solid-waste classification system
• An EU annex — mapping to the Waste Framework Directive and the European List of Waste
• A US annex — referencing EPA regulations, state-level permitting, and RCRA waste categories

Each annex adapts the same core verification logic to local requirements without modifying the framework itself.

Impact on artifacts

The geographic scope classification impacts MvF tabular artifacts:

When an element is marked "Territorial" in the Rules Table, the MvA developer knows the implementation must consult a territorial data source — instead of hardcoding a value, they create a parameterizable reference. When a parameter is marked "Territorial" in the Calculations Table, the MvF may provide a default (typically the IPCC or most conservative value), but the MvA must be capable of substituting the territorial value when available.

For the full specification of how geographic adaptability is structured in each MvF section, see the MvF Minimum Structure reference.

Learn about MvA · Learn about the Carrot dMRV Standard