Governed by design.
Built for scrutiny.
Financed emissions reporting is not a calculation problem.
It is an accountability
problem.
Peercarbon exists to ensure that climate-related disclosures remain consistent, explainable, and defensible inside real banking environments — where standards evolve, data is imperfect, and scrutiny increases over time.
// Governance is enforced by system design, not policy reminders.
The governance principle
Institutional judgment remains human.
System logic remains governed.
Peercarbon does not override credit policy, investment judgment, or risk committee decisions.
It standardizes how climate-related logic is applied to portfolio data — and preserves incontrovertible proof of how each output was produced.
Governance by architecture
While portfolio composition, asset mix, and methodology choices differ, the control structures do not.
Peercarbon standardizes governance across:
- methodology selection
- change approval
- data lineage
- audit evidence
This ensures consistency without forcing uniformity.
Identity & access control
No hidden changes. No informal overrides.
Peercarbon operates within institutional governance structures. Controls include:
- → strict separation between data operators, reviewers, and approvers
- → role-based access for configuration versus approval
- → restricted modification of approved rule sets
Result: Accountability is provable, not assumed.
Methodology lock
Explicit selection. Approved application. Reproducible outputs.
Financed emissions reporting becomes risky when methodologies shift silently or inconsistently across teams. Peercarbon enforces:
- → explicit methodology selection per asset class and reporting scope
- → documented assumption hierarchies and proxy rules (PCAF-aligned)
- → reproducible outputs bound to the exact methodology version used
Result: Institutions can explain not only what was reported, but why it was reported that way.
Data lineage & traceability
Every output traces back to a source exposure.
Outputs fail under scrutiny when lineage is unclear or incomplete. Peercarbon preserves:
- → traceability from outputs to source exposure identifiers
- → full transformation history across normalization and attribution
- → explicit visibility of missing data and uncertainty
Result: Outputs remain inspectable under deep review.
Change management
Standards evolve. History must not collapse.
Climate standards change faster than audit cycles. Without formal change control, each reporting period becomes a rebuild. Peercarbon enforces:
- → version-controlled methodology configurations per reporting period
- → approval workflows before rule sets are modified
- → immutable records of change authority
Result: Historical defensibility is preserved even as standards evolve.
Audit readiness
Evidence is produced as the system runs.
Audit failures rarely stem from intent. They stem from missing proof. Peercarbon supports audit readiness through:
- → immutable audit trails capturing all methodology and version events
- → exportable evidence packs aligned to reporting periods
- → explicit documentation of assumptions and data quality treatment
Result: Audit preparation shifts from reconstruction to retrieval.
Governance that compounds.
Once governance structures are established, subsequent reporting cycles require progressively less effort.
The system retains institutional memory:
- / prior methodology decisions
- / historical assumptions
- / change rationale
This reduces rework, manual intervention, and dependency on individual knowledge.
Governance improves with use.
✕ What this prevents
Undocumented Logic Drift
Silent changes that surface only under audit.
Irreproducible History
Outputs that cannot be reconstructed across periods.
Inconsistent Application
Different proxies applied by different teams or branches.
Audit Collapse
Disclosures that fail under sustained questioning.
Institutional confidence,
by design.
Peercarbon does not replace institutional judgment. It protects it.
Review implementation methods