A governed evaluative layer inside Terra Vita Hub that converts evidence integrity, attribution, MRV sufficiency, operator capability, responsibility matrices and decision-environment logic into institution-grade capital-flow decision outputs.
Capital‑Flow Readiness is the Hub layer that evaluates whether a project, operator, portfolio or sovereign programme can move through institutional capital gates. It does not approve funding, issue investment advice, create a rating, certify a project or replace the mandate of a DFI, ministry, bank, climate-finance facility or regulated corporate.
The Funding Spine may display its outputs, such as a Decision‑Ready Dossier or a Capital‑Flow Readiness Score, but all evaluative logic remains in Terra Vita Hub under the Governance Spine.
Capital‑Flow Readiness sits directly beneath the Governance Spine. It reads governed inputs from evidence architecture, MRV pathways, operator readiness, responsibility matrices and decision environments, then produces outputs that can be exported or displayed by downstream surfaces.
Codifies institutional decision gates used by DFIs, ministries, climate-finance facilities, banks and regulated corporates.
A governance-grade, DGE-derived score showing evidence sufficiency against institutional decision logic. It is not a marketing score, reputation score, credit rating or approval.
Identifies where a project fails, why it fails, the responsible actor, missing evidence, required pathway, blocked gate and timeline.
Moves operators from non-investable to investable through responsibility matrices, MRV pathways, evidence architecture, documentation engine and decision-environment logic.
Rolls up integrity, compliance, readiness distribution, impact validity, risk posture and bottlenecks for cross-project comparability.
Creates national evidence maps, multi-ministry responsibility matrices, policy-aligned readiness pathways, sovereign diagnostics and reporting outputs.
| Gate | Review question | Structured output |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence integrity | Can the evidence be traced, attributed, timestamped and reconstructed? | Integrity state, evidence references, gaps and reviewer notes. |
| Attribution logic | Are actor, asset, activity, outcome and claim linked without ambiguity? | Attribution posture, unresolved conflicts and responsible actor. |
| MRV sufficiency | Are baseline, indicator, method and verification routes sufficient for reliance? | MRV state, method attachment, validation gaps and closure timeline. |
| Operator capability | Can the delivery actor execute, document and report to institutional standard? | Capability posture, upgrade pathway and before/after readiness state. |
| Governance compliance | Are authority boundaries, reviewer routes and responsibility matrices intact? | Compliance state, authority exceptions and pathway requirement. |
| Policy alignment | Does the project align with programme, national and facility-level policy routes? | Policy posture, blocked gate and sovereign/national alignment note. |
| Nature/climate validity | Are nature, adaptation, mitigation or resilience claims evidence-bound? | Impact-validity posture, assumptions and missing proof objects. |
| Reporting compatibility | Can evidence support CSRD, ISSB, EU Taxonomy, TNFD, UNFCCC or CBD outputs? | Reporting compatibility map and export-ready evidence summary. |
| Risk posture | Are material execution, governance, environmental, social and assurance risks visible? | Risk posture, owner and conditions blocking capital flow. |
| Investment-readiness criteria | Is the project decision-ready for the relevant institutional route? | Readiness score, dossier status and blocked capital gate. |
The score is calculated from Decision Gate Engine posture, evidence sufficiency and open blocking conditions. It must always travel with gate details, failure modes and reviewer notes. It cannot be separated from the evidence route and cannot be used as a public ranking, credit score, certification or investment recommendation.
{
"case_ref": "CFR-CASE-001",
"failed_gate": "mrv_sufficiency",
"failure_location": "baseline_evidence",
"failure_reason": "No verified baseline parcel map attached",
"responsible_actor": "operator",
"missing_evidence": ["georeferenced baseline", "method attachment note"],
"governance_pathway": "evidence_gap_closure",
"capital_gate_blocked": "investment_committee_pack",
"timeline_days": 30,
"reviewer_ready": true
}Current operator posture, missing records, weak MRV routes and governance gaps are recorded.
Roles, accountable actors, evidence rights and escalation paths are assigned.
Baselines, indicators, methods and validation routes are attached.
Proof objects are structured into a reconstructable lineage.
Dossiers, conditions and closure records are generated.
Investable, conditioned, blocked or export-ready posture is recorded.
Evidence-bound dossiers for institutional review, committee circulation and controlled export.
DGE-derived sufficiency scores with gate posture, conditions and boundary statements attached.
Machine-readable diagnostic objects identifying blocked gates, owners, missing evidence and timelines.
Before/after readiness states and closure pathways for operator investability.
Aggregated roll-ups showing comparability, risk posture and bottlenecks across projects.
National evidence maps, multi-ministry matrices and reporting exports for sovereign systems.