Gov-API certs that lodge a gas boiler as main_heating_category=2 + a PCDB
main_heating_index_number but omit sap_main_heating_code were carried with
a null code, so the heating generators (which gated on sap_main_heating_code
alone) never evaluated them for a boiler upgrade or a system tune-up — they
silently got nothing (£0 works, plateau at D). The SAP calculator already
handles this shape (cert_to_inputs._is_wet_boiler_main), so the calculator
modelled these as wet boilers while the recommenders ignored them.
Mirror the calculator's classification in the generator:
- _is_wet_boiler / _is_electric_boiler fall back, when no SAP code is
lodged, to a PCDB Table 105 boiler index or main_heating_category in
{1,2} (heat pumps excluded); electric boilers stay excluded by the code
range when lodged, else by an electricity main fuel.
- _already_condensing reads the boiler's declared PCDB winter efficiency
when there is no Table 4b code, so a modern condensing boiler lodged this
way still isn't offered a pointless like-for-like swap (gets a tune-up).
Verified read-only on portfolio 814 / scenario 1271: pids 742304, 742306,
742322, 742325, 742336 now get a gas_boiler_upgrade (two cross D->C on the
boiler alone) where they had £0 works; predicted properties whose heating
donor is a PCDB-shape boiler (e.g. 742095/742102/742105) also recover a
tune-up. Fixes the A#2 slice of #1388 (and unblocks 742302/742367).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385 phase 2. The 20.0.0 and 21.0.0 mappers dropped insulated_door_u_value
(top-level Optional float), unlike 21.0.1. heat_transmission reads it as the
measured door U-value override (cert_to_inputs -> heat_transmission:809), so
dropping it forced every door onto the RdSAP default U-value.
Verification: new test 3 passed (21.0.0 sample lodges 3; 20.0.0 latent -> inject
1.5 + absent -> None); corpus 6002 passed; SAP-accuracy regressions pass; pyright
unchanged (39 -> 39).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The neighbour SAP-divergence cohort was (postcode, property_type, built_form),
which mixed electric- and gas-heated dwellings. Electricity scores materially
lower in SAP than mains gas for identical fabric, so a mixed-fuel postcode
produced cross-fuel false outliers — an electric dwelling flagged only for being
electric among gas neighbours.
Add the main-heating fuel class to the cohort key (electricity variants — 29/30
+ off-peak 31-40 — collapse to one class; every other code is its own bucket).
Now every flagged divergence is a same-fuel comparison worth investigating. On
portfolio 814 this refined 20 raw divergences to 17 same-fuel ones while keeping
the genuine within-fuel outliers (e.g. the all-electric WC2B 4AW flats at SAP
26/38 vs a cohort median of 67).
Reaches the fuel via epc_main_heating_detail through the indexed property_id —
still never touches the recommendation table. Surfaced by the portfolio-814
recommendation audit (Work item B, #1388).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385 phase 2. The 21.0.0 mapper dropped mechanical_ventilation_index_number
and mechanical_vent_duct_type, unlike 21.0.1. cert_to_inputs reads both (PCDB
Table 4f/329 heat-recovery/SFP lookup + the Table 329 in-use factor), so an
MVHR/MEV cert on the 21.0.0 path fell back to the SAP default efficiency.
Mirrors 21.0.1 exactly -- only the two fields it actually maps. The other four
mechanical_vent_duct_* schema fields have no mapper OR calculator consumer even
on 21.0.1 (verified), so they're deliberately left alone rather than populating
dead domain fields.
Verification: new test 1 passed (harvested 21.0.0 sample lodges index=12,
duct_type=3); corpus 6002 passed; SAP-accuracy regressions pass; pyright
unchanged (39 -> 39).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385 phase 2. 21.0.0 was the last mapper still dropping the lodged
percent_draughtproofed (top-level int) — every other path (17.0/…/21.0.1) reads
it. Dropping it understated the SAP §2 draughtproofing/infiltration credit for
21.0.0 certs.
Verification: new test 1 passed (harvested 21.0.0 sample lodges 100); corpus
6002 passed; SAP-accuracy regressions pass; pyright unchanged (39 -> 39).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385, building-part fabric family. The 17.0 mapper hardcoded
floor_insulation_thickness / sap_room_in_roof to None and omitted
flat_roof_insulation_thickness, all of which the 17.0 schema lodges and the
19.0/20.0/21.x paths read:
* floor_insulation_thickness: "NI" (no measured thickness) -> None so u_floor
reaches its age-band default, else pass through (mirrors the 19.0 note).
* flat_roof_insulation_thickness: pass through (was dropped).
* sap_room_in_roof: map to SapRoomInRoof(floor_area, construction_age_band),
None if absent (mirrors 19.0).
17.0-only: the 17.1 SapBuildingPart schema has none of these fields, so its None
there is correct (verified against the dataclass). roof_insulation_thickness is
intentionally left raw -- the sloping-ceiling resolve helper moves roof U-values
and is a separate follow-up.
Verification: new test 3 passed; test_mapper_corpus 6002 passed; SAP-accuracy /
RealCertExpectation regressions pass; pyright unchanged (39 -> 39, pre-existing).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385, shower/WWHRS family. The 17.0 and 19.0 API mappers left
sap_heating.number_baths / mixer_shower_count as None, so the water-heating
demand (cert_to_inputs) fell back to defaults instead of the lodged bath/shower
room counts. Derive them from schema.sap_heating.instantaneous_wwhrs, mirroring
the 17.1/18.0/20.0 paths:
number_baths = rooms_with_bath_and_or_shower + rooms_with_bath_and_mixer_shower
mixer_shower_count = rooms_with_mixer_shower_no_bath + rooms_with_bath_and_mixer_shower
Guarded on instantaneous_wwhrs is not None (Optional in the schema), like 17.1.
Counts, same meaning across the reduced-field family.
Verification: new test 2 passed; test_mapper_corpus 6002 passed; SAP-accuracy /
RealCertExpectation regressions pass; pyright unchanged (39 -> 39, pre-existing).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385, heating-controls family. The 17.0 API mapper omitted
main_heating_controls entirely, leaving the domain field None while the
19.0/20.0/21.x paths map the first lodged control via _map_energy_element. 17.0
lodges main_heating_controls (List[EnergyElement]) in all 23 local fixtures.
The mapped element is the same EnergyElement type 17.0 already carries for
main_heating / window, so this is straight parity (not new logic). Guarded on a
non-empty list -> None, matching the siblings.
Verification: new test 2 passed; test_mapper_corpus 6002 passed; recommendation
+ heating-control tests 85 passed (the domain EnergyElement field is distinct
from the subscriptable dict HeatingControlRecommender reads via the Property
wrapper, so no recommender destabilisation); SAP-accuracy regressions pass;
pyright unchanged (39 -> 39, pre-existing).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PRD #1385, lighting family. The 17.0 and 19.0 API mappers hardcoded every
fixed-lighting bulb count to 0, dropping the lodged lighting mix that the
reference-complete 17.1/18.0/20.0 paths read. The schema lodges total +
low-energy OUTLET counts (ADR-0028); mirror the reference split — low-energy
outlets → low_energy bulbs, the remainder → incandescent — so the SAP
lighting-energy calc sees the real low-energy credit instead of assuming none.
led/cfl stay 0 (reduced-field certs don't split those); 21.0.x use a different
bulb-based lighting schema and are out of scope. The `total - low_energy`
subtraction is safe: all 37 local 17.0/19.0 fixtures have low_energy <= total
(no negative incandescent), matching the reference paths that already do this
unclamped.
Verification: new test 2 passed; test_mapper_corpus 6002 passed; SAP-accuracy /
RealCertExpectation regressions 56 passed (no pinned shifts); pyright unchanged
(39 -> 39, pre-existing).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
