Colliding Methodologies
Prevention and management of overlapping dMRV methodologies.
What is a methodology collision?
A methodology collision occurs when two or more dMRV methodologies could verify the same waste mass, creating a risk of double counting. For example, if organic waste is claimed for both a recycling credit and a carbon credit based on the same composting activity, the environmental impact would be counted twice — undermining the integrity of the entire credit system.
Collision prevention is a core requirement of the Carrot dMRV Standard and is enforced at multiple levels: during methodology proposal review, through runtime validation rules, and via governance oversight.
Prevention
Collisions are prevented before they can occur through structural safeguards:
- Scope registration — Every methodology declares its eligible waste types, treatment methods, and geographic boundaries. These scope definitions are reviewed for overlap before a methodology enters production.
- Community review — The Community of Experts evaluates new methodology proposals for potential overlap with existing methodologies during the validation phase of the methodology lifecycle.
- Technical safeguards — Each waste mass is represented by a unique MassID, ensuring that the same physical material cannot be submitted under multiple identities.
Detection
Even with preventive measures, the system includes runtime rules that detect and block potential collisions:
waste-mass-is-unique— Validates that no duplicate MassIDs exist with the same combination of drop-off, pick-up, recycler, waste generator, and vehicle license plate. This prevents the same physical waste mass from being submitted twice.no-conflicting-certificate-or-credit— Validates that a MassID is not already linked to a valid certificate or credit order. This prevents double counting at the certification level.
These rules run automatically as part of every MvA evaluation. A MassID that fails either rule cannot receive a certificate.
The Community of Experts also monitors for emerging collision patterns — cases where methodologies develop scope overlap over time through versioning changes.
Resolution process
When a potential collision is identified, the resolution process is governance-led:
- Detection — The collision is identified through runtime rule failures, Community of Experts monitoring, or external reporting.
- Analysis — The Carrot Foundation and Community of Experts analyze the scope overlap and its impact.
- Priority determination — The first-verified methodology generally takes precedence for disputed claims.
- Scope adjustment — The conflicting methodology must narrow its scope to eliminate the overlap.
- Implementation — Rule updates are deployed to enforce the adjusted scopes.
As the ecosystem matures, the Carrot Foundation will progressively expand community participation in collision resolution decisions.
Current safeguards
The active BOLD methodologies (BOLD Recycling and BOLD Carbon (CH₄)) enforce collision prevention through their integrity rules:
waste-mass-is-unique— Shared across both methodologies, preventing duplicate submissions.no-conflicting-recycled-id-or-credit(BOLD Recycling) — Ensures a MassID is not already linked to a RecycledID certificate or credit.no-conflicting-gas-id-or-credit(BOLD Carbon (CH₄)) — Ensures a MassID is not already linked to a GasID certificate or credit.
These rules operate independently per methodology but together form a comprehensive anti-collision system.
Coexistence scenarios
Two methodologies with similar technical basis can coexist if they serve distinct purposes (different audiences, scales, or contexts — e.g., municipal vs. industrial), and the platform ensures the same participant cannot be accredited simultaneously under both colliding methodologies.
Automated collision detection
- Carrot Analytic Engine (CaE) monitoring — The CaE monitors data from active methodologies using ML algorithms comparing mass patterns, flows, coefficients, and calculation parameters. When unusual correlations are found (mass duplication, variable equivalence, statistical overlap), it triggers preventive blocking and flags the case for analysis.
- Carrot Agentic Advisor (CaA) contextualization — The CaA contextualizes detected anomalies, classifies the conflict type and severity, and recommends corrective actions (parameter adjustments, temporary accreditation suspension, or community review process).
Governance resolution
When a persistent or structural conflict is identified, the Carrot Foundation and/or the Community of Experts may deliberate on: maintaining both methodologies with reinforced scope separation, merging overlapping elements, or discontinuing one methodology.