VRCRI
Explore the system

Regenerative Systems Atlas

Explore the connected wastewater-to-regeneration system.

Eighteen research domains, each with three subtopics, linked by explained relationships. The domains are an editorial taxonomy, not performance ratings of any utility. Relationships are original synthesis. Related sources are shown for context and do not prove a relationship.

Directory of domains

The same 18 domains as a list. Works without hover or the graph.

Domain O / Cross-cutting

Climate accounting

Carbon retention, avoided emissions and issued credits are separate things.

Subtopics

  • Whole-system emissions. Use a transparent lifecycle boundary and actual energy/transport data.
  • Carbon stability and storage. Distinguish physical retention from accounting methods.
  • Credits and lifecycle integrity. Do not imply issuance of certified credits from a general carbon claim.

Where a decision here travels

Domains reached by following the selected relationship types, by number of steps. Structural reach only; it does not show material flow or size of effect.

Downstream

  1. 1 step: ;
  2. 2 steps: ; ;

Upstream

Nothing mapped in this direction.

Feedback loops through this domain (0)

No closed loop passes through this domain in the register.

Relationships (2)

  • Dependency

    Whole-system emissions to Sensitivity and funding allocation: Carbon benefit sensitivity depends on actual lifecycle boundary.

    Question raised: Which decisions in O Climate accounting or Q Economics and finance must be settled before the other can be treated as fixed?

    Why connected? (R30)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    How strongly one side depends on the other depends on the site, the technology and the regulatory context. No magnitude is asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Dependency: Whole-system emissions (domain O) to Sensitivity and funding allocation (domain Q).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    The system boundary chosen for an emissions assessment affects the apparent benefit and therefore which uncertainties matter most.
    3. Why it matters
    Different boundaries can give different answers.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Boundary definition. Downstream: Sensitivity analysis and funding priorities.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Methods differ between schemes and jurisdictions.
    7. What would settle it
    An emissions assessment with the boundary stated and varied.
  • Evidence required

    Credits and lifecycle integrity to Evidence, provenance and audit: Credit claims require scheme-specific evidence and controls.

    Question raised: What would have to be shown in O Climate accounting before a claim in R Governance and evidence can be made?

    Why connected? (R31)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.
    Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Evidence required: Credits and lifecycle integrity (domain O) to Evidence, provenance and audit (domain R).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Credit claims depend on scheme-specific evidence and controls, so credible claims need auditable records.
    3. Why it matters
    A credit claim without evidence is not defensible.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Scheme choice and monitoring. Downstream: Audit and verification.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 5 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Requirements differ by scheme and change over time.
    7. What would settle it
    The current scheme method compared with the evidence actually held.

Claim status: Interpretation. This is original synthesis, not measured data or a performance rating.