diff --git a/posts/ipcc-cdr-methodologies.md b/posts/ipcc-cdr-methodologies.md
index 440d173..20cea1a 100644
--- a/posts/ipcc-cdr-methodologies.md
+++ b/posts/ipcc-cdr-methodologies.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-version: 1.0.0
+version: 1.0.1
 title: Now is the time to provide evidence to inform IPCC carbon removal reporting standards
 authors:
   - Freya Chay
@@ -16,6 +16,6 @@ We just returned home from Copenhagen, where the TFI gathered around 100 experts
 
 Although this process might feel removed from the day-to-day work of scientists and practitioners working on CDR, it will likely shape the field for a long time to come. Today's national inventories, for instance, follow guidelines established in 2006, which have only been tweaked a couple of times since. In other words, don’t expect the TFI to look at CDR again for several more years. Although countries always have the freedom to report on emissions and removals for which the TFI does not provide guidance, the methodology report will send an important signal about which CDR approaches countries should take seriously and provide a clear path for countries to take credit for those activities.
 
-Some CDR approaches are already addressed by TFI methodologies. These include forest and soil-based methods, [bioenergy with carbon capture and storage](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/beccs), and [biochar](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/biochar). But existing methodologies will likely be updated, and new methodologies may be developed for other approaches such as [direct air capture](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification), [enhanced weathering](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/enhanced-weathering), [ocean alkalinity enhancement](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/ocean-alkalinity-enhancement-electrochemical), and [direct ocean removal](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/direct-ocean-removal). During the writing process, authors will evaluate if there is sufficient scientific evidence to develop a methodology for each CDR approach under consideration. Only literature made public before July 2026 will be considered. Although published scientific papers will be given precedence, it appears that preprints and other reports made public by the deadline may be taken into consideration.
+Some CDR approaches are already addressed by TFI methodologies. These include forest and soil-based methods, [bioenergy with carbon capture and storage](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/beccs), and [biochar](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/biochar). But existing methodologies will likely be updated, and new methodologies may be developed for other approaches such as [direct air capture](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification), [enhanced weathering](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/enhanced-weathering), [ocean alkalinity enhancement](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/ocean-alkalinity-enhancement-electrochemical), and [direct ocean removal](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification/direct-ocean-removal). During the writing process, authors will evaluate if there is sufficient scientific evidence to develop a methodology for each CDR approach under consideration. Only literature made public before July 2026 will be considered. Although published, peer-reviewed scientific papers will be given precedence, it appears that preprints and other reports made public by the deadline may be taken into consideration.
 
 If you are working on CDR — especially on these newer technologies — this is an important window in which to publicly share the data and methods you have to demonstrate the efficacy of your approach. Keep an eye on the [IPCC TFI website](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/meeting/meeting.html) for public outputs from the scoping meeting and more details on the process to come.