The printed "candidate measures considered" now matches what the
orchestrator actually offered — on 711795 the lodged cavity wall printed
a cavity-fill candidate the plan (timber-frame effective wall) never saw.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Regression guard: category 8 + control 2701 keep the ADR-0048 coherence
invariant satisfied for SAP codes 421/422/424.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
WS2 of PRD #1435, diagnosed on property 711795: an electric-underfloor
override inherits the replaced community-heating category (no pathway,
baseline mis-rated 51 vs 67), and wall generators offer £4k insulation
that cannot change an age-band-L wall's derived U (0.280 → 0.280).
Glossary: Wall U-Value Gate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sizing selects the aroTHERM plus rung nearest PSR ~0.8 (0.8 x design heat
loss) — the Appendix-N efficiency peak, reproducing the pump a real
installer fits — rather than the MCS PSR>=1.0 capacity target, which
oversizes. Validated against the relodged Elmhurst ASHP cert (delta 0
held at the 5 kW Vaillant); the two self-snapshot pins re-pin to their
correctly-sized larger pumps, and the orchestrator/harness thread the
calculator's design heat loss so production sizes to the dwelling. Manual
SapResult test stubs carry the new design_heat_loss_kw field.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
_ashp_option threads its sized design heat loss into ashp_cost_inputs so
the cost band and the pump's efficiency record share one figure — a leaky
dwelling's larger pump is priced on the matching band.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
_ashp_option now selects the aroTHERM plus PCDB record matching the
threaded design heat loss (floor-area proxy fallback), so the overlay's
efficiency anchor is sized to the dwelling instead of a fixed 5 kW unit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Walked the water-heating worksheet section: assumed occupancy (42) matched
exactly (2.4234 both sides), but (43) average daily hot water use was
117.41 L/day (Elmhurst) vs 110.73 L/day (ours) — same occupancy, different
shower/bath demand. Root cause: the cert's shower_outlets field is
genuinely unlodged, which the mapper correctly maps to 0 mixer showers
per its documented, already-validated "no entry = no shower" convention.
Elmhurst's build shows a "Non-electric shower" fixture anyway — its UI
silently defaults one when the build script doesn't explicitly configure
"0 showers" to match the cert.
Verified: a single 7 L/min vented mixer reproduces Elmhurst's (42a)
monthly series exactly (4 d.p., all 12 months) and closes hot water to
2616.04 vs Elmhurst's 2616.03. Corpus-wide check across 170 certs sharing
this "bath present, no shower data" pattern shows no systematic bias
(mean dSAP +0.12, median -0.04) — confirms the mapper convention is
correct on average; this is a build-entry artifact on this one cert, not
a mapper bug (no code change warranted).
Combining all three found causes (window orientation, Table 11, shower
default): SAP 72.4567 vs Elmhurst's precise 72.0681 — residual 0.39,
~91% of the original 4.26-point gap now precisely explained.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
design_heat_loss_kw = annual-average HLC x 24.2 K (SAP design temperature
difference) / 1000, the quantity Appendix N's PSR divides a heat pump's
rated output by — surfaced so the ASHP recommendation can size the pump.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The sizing ladder (Vaillant aroTHERM plus 3.5-12 kW PCDB records) picks
the smallest rung whose rated output meets the design heat loss, so SAP
10.2 Appendix N reads the heat-pump efficiency near its PSR peak instead
of collapsing on an undersized fixed unit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Walked the worksheet section-by-section (dimensions, ventilation, fabric,
internal/solar gains, MIT, space-heating requirement, fuel cost) against
the calculator's matching intermediates. Internal gains and heat loss
matched closely, but solar gains (worksheet line 83) was 2.2x off in
January (56.9 W vs our 123.4 W) — traced to the Elmhurst BUILD entering
all 12 real windows (3 orientations: NW 7.05 m2, NE 1.21 m2, SE 7.06 m2)
as a single synthetic 15.32 m2 "North" group, understating solar gain.
Verified by reproducing both build artifacts in the calculator: real
windows + real Table-11 gating = 76.33 (our answer, matches lodged 76
exactly); collapsing to a synthetic single-North window + forcing Table
11 on = 72.62, reproducing Elmhurst's 72 almost exactly. Confirms neither
residual is a mapping or calculator bug — one is a deliberate,
regression-tested spec choice (Table 11) and the other is an artifact of
how this specific Elmhurst reconciliation build was entered.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
