Types

The following types of validation criteria are defined.

TYPE	DESCRIPTION
Historical Vetting	These criteria check for the alignment of scenarios with historical trends. Scenarios are flagged if they do not match reported data from the real world for time periods in the past (i.e. 2025 and before). Misalignment of a scenario means that the scenario is or has become impossible, which can often be the outcome of outdatedness of older scenarios.
Feasibility Concern	These criteria check for the alignment of scenarios with near-term trends and long-term developments across sectors. In the near future (i.e. next 5 years), scenarios are flagged if they substantially deviate from project announcements. In particular, installment rates are unlikely to exceed announced projects for technologies with long lead times (e.g. hydropower, nuclear power or carbon capture and storage). Moreover, near-term market forecasts for technologies with established markets (e.g. solar PV or wind) provide corridors of installment rates that are unlikely to be subceeded or exceeded. In the longer future (i.e. 2035 and beyond), scenarios are flagged if they report technology growth rates that surpass general expectations. While going above or below these near-term and long-term thresholds is not strictly impossible, those developments are deemed would require unconventional implementation and growth rates.
Sustainability Concern	Sustainability vetting criteria check for the alignment of scenarios with sustainability targets other than climate-change mitigation. Scenarios are flagged if they report the use of technologies, activities or practices at a level that goes beyond what would be sustainable in those other non-climate ecosystem targets. The thresholds for sustainability criteria are derived from literature focussing on the respective sustainability targets. Misalignment of a scenario does not mean that the scenario is impossible or infeasible, but rather that it is undesirable from a non-climate sustainability perspective.