> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-handbook/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-version-updates.md).

# Methodology Version Updates

Methodologies will be reviewed periodically to account for changes in underlying assumptions or changes in best practice in the sector. The OCP runs annual audits of all methodologies, but methodology curators are welcome to submit updates at any point. Additionally, anyone can submit a complaint or grievance at any time, which will trigger a full methodology review.

Methodologies can either undergo minor updates (e.g. v1.0 to v1.2) or major updates (v1.0 to 2.0). 

## Minor Version Updates

**Minor updates** will be accounted for **within a version update** (e.g. v1.0 to v1.1); these can include any number of the list changes:

1. Spelling and grammar
2. Updating sources and references
3. Updating independently set default values/parameters to the most recent version (e.g. new IPCC reports)
4. Minor updates to text which don't impact project eligibility or accounting (e.g. adding explanation to concepts, adding links, updating definitions and acronyms)
5. Adding appendices

All other changes will require a [**major version update**](#major-version-updates-1). 

<mark style="color:$success;">**Minor updates are approved by the OCP Team**</mark>.

#### Minor Version Update Process

1. The minor version update process can be triggered by:
   1. Methodology author requesting updates
   2. OCP team requesting updates, as part of the annual audit or as new evidence arises
   3. Compliant or grievance has been submitted
2. The methodology curator submits a minor version update draft through the OCP platform, indicating that they think the changes are minor. If the original author is unable or unwilling to make edits, the OCP team will assign a new author.
3. The OCP Team reviews the proposed changes
   1. If they agree with the proposed minor updates > approve new minor version update
   2. If they disagree with the proposed minor updates > reject new minor version update + open discussions with curator
   3. If they decide the changes suggested are **major** updates > transfer process to the [major version update process](#update-procedure).

During minor version updates the current version of the methodology can continue to be used to propose projects.&#x20;

## Major Version Updates

All other changes than the ones listed under Minor Version Updates require a Major Version Updates. Specially, any changes involving **eligibility** or **quantification** will always require a Major Version Update.

All projects in draft or validation using the original methodology version must update their project documentation and linked methodology to the new version. Registered projects will continued to be listed under the original version of the methodology.&#x20;

If the original version of the methodology is deemed unusable by the Expert Panel, OCP Advisory Board or OCP Team, all projects using the methodology will be put on pause during the major version update process. They will then be able to reapply with the new methodology.

## Major Version Update Process

<figure><img src="https://2657567075-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQliKVc60bXYNfBciAKA8%2Fuploads%2FmCptnNIismOBXO5egHd2%2FMajor%20Update%20-%20Diagram%20for%20Handbook.png?alt=media&amp;token=b53b37fa-186b-4d43-905e-9ea2946c69e1" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

1. Update process is triggered by:
   1. Methodology author requesting updates
   2. OCP team requesting updates, as part of the annual audit or as new evidence arises
   3. Compliant or grievance has been submitted
2. Original methodology author submits major update draft in the OCP platform, indicating whether they think the changes are major. If the original author is unable or unwilling to make edits, the OCP team will assign a new author.
3. The OCP team will assign an expert panel of 4+ [Voting Experts](/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-development-process.md#voting-experts), and 0+ [Non-Voting Contributors and Platform Partners](/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-development-process.md#non-voting-contributors), depending on the proposed changes and sector.
   1. The OCP team can decide that the proposed changes are only minor, and transfer the process to the [minor version update process](#minor-version-update-process).
4. Assigning the Expert Panel kicks off both 30 days of public commentary and 30 days of expert feedback in parallel. Voting is disabled during this period, but the expert and curator will be able to read and respond to each others' comments. The curator can continue to make updates the candidate draft during this time.
5. Once public commentary has been completed, the curator must respond to all public commentary received and upload the completed file, as well as make any relevant changes to the methodology. Changes are tracked in the ‘Update Summary’.
6. Once the public commentary response file has been uploaded, the final feedback and voting round starts. All experts will provide final comments, and Voting Experts will submit their vote on whether to approve, abstain, or not approve the update. The round will finish when all voting experts have submitted their vote. <mark style="color:$primary;">**80%+ approval is required for new major versions to be approved**</mark>.