Report provenance
Engine model version and source stamps on reports.
Reviewed
What this is for
Which engine made the number, and whether anybody has assessed this design against the grid code. A report handed to a client or a bank has to be traceable to the build that produced it. The model version is stamped on the stored result. Resolving it at print time would trace to whatever is deployed today.
The grid-code line is a verdict somebody reached, never a fact about the market. Which code applies is a deployment fact; only a compliance run says whether this design meets it.
The engine is bounded against a synthesised clear-sky year and a PVGIS run. It is not validated against a measured year. Catalogue rows and tariff prices are indicative unless the row itself carries a review date. A complete-looking footer is not a bankable stamp.
Steps
- On the on-screen result, the footer is GENERATED BY the firm named in the deployment's branding, MODEL v the engine version, and the timestamp the run finished.
- On every page of the production report the line names the firm from the deployment's branding, repeats the model version, adds the page number, and adds the compliance statement when the market has an interconnection regime to report against. Above it sits a one-sentence disclaimer about what a modelled figure is, when the deployment sets one: the same words on the screen sheet and the PDF, and a statement about every figure rather than a verdict on this one.
- That statement has five states, because the four failures are not the same failure:
- the code, not assessed - the checker has never been reached, the ordinary state;
- assessment predates this design - a layout that has since moved;
- not met - blocking findings;
- met with warnings - the application route changes, the design is not refused;
- compliant.
- A market with no registration prints nothing rather than an empty claim. A footer asserting compliance with a code that does not apply is worse than a footer that says nothing.
- Weather source, horizon, transposition and temperature models, and the module on each field segment sit in the body of the sheet, not in this line. They are what produced the year; this line is which build and which verdict.
Until a pairing has been run, there is no footer to read.
Tips and common mistakes
- Do not read a missing compliance line as a pass. Nothing printed means nothing was claimed.
- Do not quote "compliant" off the market requiring registration. That is how every export in a deployment stamps the same word whether or not a check ran.
- Re-running a stale result writes a new run, stamped with the engine that made it. The old PDF still carries the old stamp; that is the point.