From 29157811e0a4b5811e1b1aea42a69b749bbe305f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Khalim Conn-Kowlessar Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:38:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Renumber=20the=20baseline-coherence=20ADR=20to?= =?UTF-8?q?=200066=20=F0=9F=9F=AA?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ADR-0065 is claimed by Scenario Export on the open #1546; this branch is the later of the two, so it moves. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) --- CONTEXT.md | 2 +- ...delling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md} | 0 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) rename docs/adr/{0065-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md => 0066-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md} (100%) diff --git a/CONTEXT.md b/CONTEXT.md index c6b900858..259096bfd 100644 --- a/CONTEXT.md +++ b/CONTEXT.md @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity recorded on the _Avoid_: original performance, raw EPC values, recorded baseline **Effective Performance**: -The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity the modelling pipeline actually scored against — equal to Lodged Performance when no Rebaselining trigger fires, replaced by **SAP10 Calculation** output (the deterministic `Sap10Calculator`, which superseded the old ML-API rebaseliner; an ML residual head over the calculator is future — ADR-0009/0013) when triggered. The half of Baseline Performance that says "what we modelled". **Modelling does not read it**: it re-scores the Effective EPC itself (it needs a continuous score and a `SapResult` to bill from, and ADR-0011 forbids an in-memory hand-off between stages), then **asserts** its re-score agrees with this persisted figure and logs an error when it does not. The two are deliberately *not* reconciled — a divergence means the stages scored different pictures, and anchoring the Plan's SAP to this integer would leave it disagreeing with its own carbon, energy and bill figures (ADR-0065). Because a Plan's `post_*` are read against this figure, an unchecked divergence surfaces to the user as a gain nobody modelled. +The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity the modelling pipeline actually scored against — equal to Lodged Performance when no Rebaselining trigger fires, replaced by **SAP10 Calculation** output (the deterministic `Sap10Calculator`, which superseded the old ML-API rebaseliner; an ML residual head over the calculator is future — ADR-0009/0013) when triggered. The half of Baseline Performance that says "what we modelled". **Modelling does not read it**: it re-scores the Effective EPC itself (it needs a continuous score and a `SapResult` to bill from, and ADR-0011 forbids an in-memory hand-off between stages), then **asserts** its re-score agrees with this persisted figure and logs an error when it does not. The two are deliberately *not* reconciled — a divergence means the stages scored different pictures, and anchoring the Plan's SAP to this integer would leave it disagreeing with its own carbon, energy and bill figures (ADR-0066). Because a Plan's `post_*` are read against this figure, an unchecked divergence surfaces to the user as a gain nobody modelled. _Avoid_: modelled performance, rebaselined performance (only correct when rebaselining ran), scored values **Calculated SAP10 Performance**: diff --git a/docs/adr/0065-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md b/docs/adr/0066-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md similarity index 100% rename from docs/adr/0065-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md rename to docs/adr/0066-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md