Every figure below draws on SBTi's own published standard and its own transition guidance, cross-checked against independent coverage (Sylvera, CEEZER, Senken). The question: not whether the 2035 mandate is real (it's dated and final) but exactly what evidence it will require, and whether that evidence already exists somewhere.
No jargon. SBTi's standard and its 2035 removals clock are real and credited below; the one fresh technical gap is worth naming plainly. Here's what closing it is worth.
An agent front door (llms.txt / agent card) → AI answers questions about your standard from your words, not third-party blogs.
Every agent-discovery path 404s to a generic "search" page today, so an assistant asked about the V2.0 standard or the 2035 removals mandate has no machine-legible surface and paraphrases from secondary coverage.
SBTi's Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 PDF is published directly at files.sciencebasedtargets.org; independent coverage (Eco-Act, Senken, Watershed) confirms the standard is final (not draft), effective 2027-01-31, with target validation under the new rules beginning Q1 2027 and a transition window through Q1 2028 allowing submissions against prior versions, a genuinely managed rollout, not a cliff-edge change.
Source: files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf; cross-referenced via senken.io/blog/sbti-net-zero-standard-v2-what-changes-for-corporate-carbon-credit-strategy-2026 (referenced 2026-07-16)
From 2035, "Category A" (large) companies must cover at least 1% of Scope 1-3 emissions through eligible carbon removals, rising linearly to 100% by their net-zero target year (2050 at the latest). Of the covered emissions attributable to long-lived GHGs (CO2, N2O, halogens), at least 10% must use long-lived removals (century-plus storage), also ramping linearly to 100% by the net-zero year. Short-lived GHGs (e.g. methane) may use any removal type. Before 2035, credits are recognized as legitimate voluntarily, with an optional 'Ongoing Emissions Responsibility' recognition tier for companies acting ahead of the mandate.
Source: Independent coverage of SBTi V2.0's own removals-ramp language (Climeworks, Eco-Act, CEEZER), cross-checked, referenced 2026-07-16
sciencebasedtargets.org ships a small but real robots.txt (94 bytes, a Sitemap directive plus a generic disallow) and a working sitemap.xml (2,643 bytes, HTTP 200). But llms.txt, /.well-known/security.txt, ai.txt, and /.well-known/agent-card.json all return an honest 404 whose page is titled, oddly but consistently, just "search": a templated not-found/search-fallback page of ~210,889-210,955 bytes across all four paths, matching a nonsense-path control almost exactly.
Source: sciencebasedtargets.org/robots.txt, llms.txt, control path (fetched 2026-07-16, contents and byte counts above)
SBTi V2's own definitional bar for a qualifying removal, ex-post (after the fact, not promised), independently third-party assured, permanently retired, never double-counted, is a description of a receipt's properties, not a description of a specific technology or project type. EWP's existing proof (photo+GPS+signature) → approve → on-chain settlement → Klima retirement flow already produces a record with exactly those properties, for ecological labor generally, years before 2035 makes removal accounting compulsory at scale. This is not a claim that EWP packets qualify as SBTi-eligible long-lived removals today: durability (century-plus storage) and tCO2e quantification remain separate, unbuilt questions for EWP, it's an honest note that the evidentiary shape the standard is about to require already has a working implementation, built for a different reason, sitting right here.
