Skip to Quick Proof Menu
Construction Forensic Intelligence Group (CFIG) • Guided Proof Portfolio 8 of 13

NREL Research Support Facility — Performance Verification Intelligence

A Guided Proof demonstration of how an energy target moves through design, construction, controls, occupancy, measured data, and corrective action.

ProjectResearch Support Facility
LocationGolden, Colorado
OwnerU.S. Department of Energy
Laboratory at deliveryNational Renewable Energy Laboratory
Completed2010
Building roleHigh-performance office and living laboratory
Public performance proofMeasured and modeled 2011 energy data
Later validationZero-energy LEED certification in 2020
Controlled Version 1.0
Validation Question

Could CFIG trace a high-performance promise from design requirements to measured operation and a clear tuning decision?

Yes. Official research, data, and facility records show the absolute-energy target, integrated design choices, cost control, measured information, real-time operations, and later zero-energy validation.

Evidence posture: Direct official support for the performance target, integrated design, capital-cost control, measured and modeled data, real-time performance use, and 2020 zero-energy validation.
Portfolio purposeThis project demonstrates positive performance forensics. It shows that CFIG does more than find failure: it can trace a promise, test the result with operating data, find variance, assign action, and preserve the payoff.
Controlled Guided Proof EditionTF-CFIG-RSF-GP-008 · Version 1.0 · Human Authority: Carl Wilson · September 4, 2026
CFIG Quick Proof and Guided Tour

What CFIG Discovered + Its Significance = Tangible Options

Project Purpose and Scope

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory built the Research Support Facility in Golden, Colorado, as an energy-efficient office building and a living laboratory. The project joined an absolute energy-use goal to a fixed-price design-build delivery approach, with modeling during design and measurement after occupancy. This portfolio follows the target through the evidence available for design and later operation.

Portfolio Highlights

This portfolio places particular attention on:

  • Phase 2 — Planning and Project Definition: Set a measurable energy target and a cost boundary before choosing the design.
  • Phase 3 — Design and Preconstruction: Use iterative models to trace daylight, ventilation, envelope, equipment, and control decisions to that target.
  • Phase 4 — Contract and Procurement: Carry the performance goal into the fixed-price design-build requirements and team selection.
  • Phase 8 — Closeout, Warranty and Operations: Compare modeled and measured energy after occupancy and assign investigation or tuning; the public data are not a complete warranty audit.

These phases show how a performance promise becomes useful when it is measurable through design and occupied operation. The full eight-phase guide keeps cost, construction, and changes visible with their source limits. CFIG did not participate in the project; this is retrospective analysis.

Emphasized phases are shown in green and gold.

Evidence Reviewed

Official laboratory facility and performance text, the 2011 measured-and-modeled data catalog, and laboratory design and capital-cost papers.

What CFIG Discovered

A measurable energy goal connects the design-build requirements and model updates to occupied-building measurement.

Significance

Performance can be assessed against an explicit target and acted on through operating and controls decisions.

Decision Window

During design, commissioning, and the first occupied year, when the target, model, and measured results could guide action.

CFIG Response

Assemble a requirement-to-design trace, model-versus-measurement comparison, and corrective-control decision plan for authorized owner and operations staff.

Consequences of Taking No Action

A performance claim could remain disconnected from operating data or from an owner assigned to investigate variance.

Controlled statusApproved controlled redesign. This is a successful-performance case with public measured-data support.
Professional boundaryCFIG does not certify energy performance or replace the owner, designer, controls specialist, commissioning provider, or LEED reviewer. The public records—not a new engineering model—support this demonstration.
START THE GUIDED PROOF TOUR EXPLORE ALL EIGHT PHASES

Interactive Proof Chain

Select any stage for its supporting detail, or follow the chain from 1 through 9.

GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 1 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: What CFIG Reviewed

What CFIG Reviewed

CFIG began with the named public records and stated the review limit before drawing a conclusion.

Reviewed core

Official laboratory facility pages, the 2011 measured-and-modeled energy data submission, NREL design and cost publications, and the later zero-energy performance text record.

Review boundary

Public research and performance records were targeted. Raw control points, complete design files, utility bills, commissioning logs, and proprietary models were not independently revalidated.

Source setOfficial RSF performance text; 2011 Measured and Modeled Energy Data; The Role of Modeling When Designing for Absolute Energy Use; Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings; Official research facilities page
Review dateSeptember 4, 2026
Evidence postureDirect official support for the performance target, integrated design, capital-cost control, measured and modeled data, real-time performance use, and 2020 zero-energy validation.
Full recordSource Register and Coverage Ledger below the tour.
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 2 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: What CFIG Discovered

What CFIG Discovered

CFIG connected separate facts into one clear decision condition.

1 · Measurable targetThe project used an absolute energy goal, not a vague “green” promise.
2 · Design traceDesign, cost, controls, equipment, and occupant loads all affected the result.
3 · Operating dataMeasured and modeled data made variance visible after occupancy.
4 · Learning loopReal-time data and later validation kept the building useful as a living laboratory.

WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE

CFIG connected the absolute energy target, integrated design choices, cost controls, building systems, occupant loads, measured data, model variance, real-time operations, and later validation.

GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 3 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Verify the Exact Source

Verify the Exact Source

The exact source is placed here so the reader does not need to hunt through the full record.

Exact evidence card

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

Official Research Support Facility performance text — National Laboratory of the Rockies, formerly NREL

“Designed To Influence an Industry” text version, paragraphs on real-time data and 2020 zero-energy validation.

“Researchers working in the RSF use real-time building performance data to study the building’s energy use and energy-saving practices.”

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The owner watches how the building uses energy and uses the data to improve performance.

What CFIG detected or connectedThe design target stayed connected to measured operation, which made the performance promise testable after construction.
Lifecycle phasePlanning and Project Definition; Design and Preconstruction; Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final Resolution.
Project effectEnergy use, capital value, operating cost, controls tuning, occupant behavior, and repeatable design learning.
Evidence statusDirect official laboratory record; technical re-certification is outside scope.
OPEN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 4 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Significance

Significance

The condition matters because it can move through cost, time, responsibility, safety, or project outcome.

Cost effect

High performance had to fit a controlled first-cost basis, not depend on unlimited capital.

Time and delivery effect

Energy decisions needed to be made while orientation, envelope, systems, controls, and equipment could still change.

Operating effect

Measured data could show whether controls, plug loads, occupants, and systems matched the model.

Benefit effect

Verified performance protects the design investment and creates lessons other projects can reuse.

Lifecycle movementMission and absolute target → Integrated design and cost choices → Construction and commissioning → Occupancy → Measured-versus-modeled check → Tuning and long-term validation.
Primary benefitVerifies the return on design decisions and turns operating data into targeted improvement.
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 5 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Decision Window

Decision Window

The useful time to act was before the next commitment made the problem harder or more costly to change.

Target windowBefore concept design, when the absolute energy goal and measurement method were set.
Design windowDuring integrated design, before orientation, envelope, systems, and equipment were locked.
Best action windowDuring commissioning and the first occupied year, when modeled and measured differences could guide tuning.
Long-term windowDuring continuous operations, when real-time data and later certification could confirm or challenge performance.
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 6 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Action CFIG Would Take

Action CFIG Would Take

CFIG would turn the evidence into three separate work products that a responsible person can use.

PRIMARY TANGIBLE OPTION 1 OF 3

Performance Requirement-to-Design Traceability Matrix

Usable output
A matrix joining each energy, cost, comfort, daylight, ventilation, equipment, and renewable requirement to design response, model result, owner, test, and acceptance proof.
Responsible user
Owner, designer, contractor, commissioning provider, energy manager, and facilities.
Decision enabled
Whether the design still supports the target before a choice is locked.
Expected result
Every major performance promise has a visible response and verification path.

Benefit: Better protection of energy and capital goals.

PRIMARY TANGIBLE OPTION 2 OF 3

Model-versus-Measured Energy Variance Dashboard

Usable output
A plain dashboard comparing target, model, meter, end use, weather, occupancy, plug load, control state, variance, confidence, and owner.
Responsible user
Energy manager, facilities, controls team, designer, and executives.
Decision enabled
Which variances matter and where investigation or tuning should start.
Expected result
The team works from measured gaps instead of general impressions.

Benefit: Faster, evidence-based operating improvement.

PRIMARY TANGIBLE OPTION 3 OF 3

Measurement, Verification, and Corrective-Control Action Plan

Usable output
A closed action log for each variance with cause hypothesis, professional review, change, test period, expected gain, actual result, and closure approval.
Responsible user
Facilities, controls, commissioning, occupants, energy manager, and Human Authority.
Decision enabled
What to tune, repair, change, monitor, or accept.
Expected result
Performance data becomes owned corrective action.

Benefit: Sustained savings and reusable project learning.

Control rule: These are three separate usable outputs. Carl Wilson, as Human Authority, decides which output is released and how it is used.
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 7 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Decision Makers and Actions Enabled

Decision Makers and Actions Enabled

Each output has a named user and a clear decision. Human Authority remains in control.

Owner and executivesSet the target, cost limit, and acceptance rule.
Design and construction teamTrace each target to a buildable, tested response.
Commissioning and controlsTest sequences, find variance, and verify tuning.
Energy and facilities teamsWatch measured performance and keep corrective actions closed.
Decision questionDid the building meet the stated target, which variances matter, and what should be tuned, corrected, monitored, or accepted?
Decision recordA signed performance record that links target, design response, model, meter, variance, action, retest, and benefit.
Human AuthorityCarl Wilson controls final use, release, and escalation.
GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 8 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Consequences of Taking No Action

Consequences of Taking No Action

If the condition is not controlled, the project can lose time, money, leverage, safety, or operating value.

Unmeasured promise

A high-performance label can survive even when the result is not checked.

Model drift

Occupancy, plug loads, controls, and weather can move actual use away from the design model.

No action owner

A known variance can remain open if no one owns the correction and retest.

Lost payoff

The owner can pay for high-performance features without preserving their operating value.

GUIDED PROOF TOUR — STEP 9 OF 9YOU ARE HERE: Verify the Finding Against Source Records

Verify the Finding Against Source Records

The proof chain below connects the claim to the exact public record and states the evidence limit.

SourceOfficial Research Support Facility performance text — National Laboratory of the Rockies, formerly NREL
Exact location“Designed To Influence an Industry” text version, paragraphs on real-time data and 2020 zero-energy validation.
Condition foundCFIG connected the absolute energy target, integrated design choices, cost controls, building systems, occupant loads, measured data, model variance, real-time operations, and later validation.
CFIG interventionMap each performance requirement to a design and control response, compare modeled and measured results, and assign corrective tuning with proof of closure.
Three Tangible OptionsPerformance Requirement-to-Design Traceability Matrix; Model-versus-Measured Energy Variance Dashboard; Measurement, Verification, and Corrective-Control Action Plan
DecisionDid the building meet the stated target, which variances matter, and what should be tuned, corrected, monitored, or accepted?
Expected resultVerifies the return on design decisions and turns operating data into targeted improvement.
Evidence statusDirect official support for the performance target, integrated design, capital-cost control, measured and modeled data, real-time performance use, and 2020 zero-energy validation.

Verification card

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

Official Research Support Facility performance text — National Laboratory of the Rockies, formerly NREL

“Designed To Influence an Industry” text version, paragraphs on real-time data and 2020 zero-energy validation.

“Researchers working in the RSF use real-time building performance data to study the building’s energy use and energy-saving practices.”

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The owner watches how the building uses energy and uses the data to improve performance.

What CFIG detected or connectedThe design target stayed connected to measured operation, which made the performance promise testable after construction.
Lifecycle phasePlanning and Project Definition; Design and Preconstruction; Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final Resolution.
Project effectEnergy use, capital value, operating cost, controls tuning, occupant behavior, and repeatable design learning.
Evidence statusDirect official laboratory record; technical re-certification is outside scope.
OPEN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

The Role of Modeling When Designing for Absolute Energy Use

Shows how the energy goal became a design constraint.

OPEN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings

Connects high performance with first-cost control.

OPEN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Boundary: CFIG does not certify energy performance or replace the owner, designer, controls specialist, commissioning provider, or LEED reviewer. The public records—not a new engineering model—support this demonstration.
Complete Portfolio Evidence and Lifecycle Record

Continue into the full supporting portfolio

The guided tour gives the short answer. The record below preserves the project purpose, source coverage, lifecycle analysis, three Tangible Options, limits, and Human Authority.

OPEN THE FIRST FULL-PORTFOLIO SECTION
Reader Guide

Why this project is in the CFIG demonstration set

Demonstration purposeThis project demonstrates positive performance forensics. It shows that CFIG does more than find failure: it can trace a promise, test the result with operating data, find variance, assign action, and preserve the payoff.

Primary CFIG capability

Requirement-to-result traceability and model-versus-measured performance control.

Decision sweet spot

At target definition, design tradeoffs, controls tuning, and the first full year of occupied performance data.

Client payoff

Verifies the return on design decisions and turns operating data into targeted improvement.

This is an independent historical demonstration built from public records. It does not claim CFIG worked on, advised, or was endorsed by the project.

Executive Summary

One condition. One decision path. Three usable outputs.

The energy promise was useful because it was made measurable, assigned to design decisions, checked during operation, and kept visible after occupancy.

ConditionCFIG connected the absolute energy target, integrated design choices, cost controls, building systems, occupant loads, measured data, model variance, real-time operations, and later validation.
InterventionMap each performance requirement to a design and control response, compare modeled and measured results, and assign corrective tuning with proof of closure.
BenefitVerifies the return on design decisions and turns operating data into targeted improvement.

Primary evidence spine

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

Official Research Support Facility performance text — National Laboratory of the Rockies, formerly NREL

“Designed To Influence an Industry” text version, paragraphs on real-time data and 2020 zero-energy validation.

“Researchers working in the RSF use real-time building performance data to study the building’s energy use and energy-saving practices.”

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The owner watches how the building uses energy and uses the data to improve performance.

What CFIG detected or connectedThe design target stayed connected to measured operation, which made the performance promise testable after construction.
Lifecycle phasePlanning and Project Definition; Design and Preconstruction; Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final Resolution.
Project effectEnergy use, capital value, operating cost, controls tuning, occupant behavior, and repeatable design learning.
Evidence statusDirect official laboratory record; technical re-certification is outside scope.
OPEN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Source Register and Coverage Ledger

What was reviewed—and what remains outside the claim

The register names each public record used here. “Targeted” means the listed project sections were reviewed for this demonstration. It does not mean every linked attachment or all project files were reviewed.

IDOriginal document and exact areaCoverage usedStatusPublic source
S1Official RSF performance text
Facility purpose, passive and active design, real-time data, photovoltaic system, and 2020 validation.		Full text page reviewed.VERIFIEDOpen original source
S22011 Measured and Modeled Energy Data
Official NREL data submission 40 and primer.		Dataset identity and purpose reviewed; raw model not rerun.VERIFIEDOpen original source
S3The Role of Modeling When Designing for Absolute Energy Use
NREL report NREL/CP-5500-49067.		Target and design-model method reviewed.VERIFIEDOpen original source
S4Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings
NREL report NREL/CP-5500-55264.		Project cost-control method reviewed.VERIFIEDOpen original source
S5Official research facilities page
Current federal-laboratory description of the completed 2010 facility.		RSF section reviewed.SUPPORTINGOpen original source
Full Project Lifecycle · Evidence Boundaries

Explore the Research Support Facility across all eight phases

The published records connect requirements, modeling, delivery, and operation. Each phase links to a supporting source or makes its evidence limit clear.

Guided proof menuOpen NREL companion reportReturn to portfolio gallery
Phase 1 · Site context, not acquisition

Land / Site Acquisition

Evidence reviewed: The laboratory materials describe the Golden campus, orientation, and solar resources. They do not establish a land acquisition or title record for this portfolio.

Decision use and limit: Use site and climate constraints for performance modeling without claiming a parcel history.

Open source registerAll eight phases
Phase 2 · Direct target evidence

Planning / Project Definition

Evidence reviewed: The design paper states an absolute energy-use objective, occupant assumptions, and a fixed budget as design-build constraints.

Decision use and limit: Set a target, measurement boundary, and decision owner before design alternatives are judged.

Open exact sourceAll eight phases
Phase 3 · Strong modeling evidence

Design / Preconstruction

Evidence reviewed: The 2011 modeling paper explains iterative whole-building and detailed analysis for daylight, ventilation, data-center load, thermal behavior, and photovoltaics.

Decision use and limit: Trace each design change and model assumption against the energy target.

Open modeling paperAll eight phases
Phase 4 · Direct delivery evidence

Contract / Procurement

Evidence reviewed: The design paper identifies a performance-based fixed-price design-build procurement and explicit contractual energy goals. The reviewed papers are not the complete executed contract file.

Decision use and limit: Check that performance duties, required proof, and acceptance criteria travel with procurement.

Open exact sourceAll eight phases
Phase 5 · Capital-cost method; no verified GMP

Guaranteed Maximum Price / Cost Formation

Evidence reviewed: The laboratory paper describes capital-cost control under performance objectives. Its fixed project budget does not by itself establish a guaranteed maximum price or complete final-cost history.

Decision use and limit: Compare first cost and energy value using verified commercial records without inventing a GMP.

Open source registerAll eight phases
Phase 6 · Built systems; limited field records

Construction / Project Controls

Evidence reviewed: The completed building and its daylight, ventilation, controls, and solar systems are described in laboratory sources. This is not a full as-built installation or commissioning-log audit.

Decision use and limit: Map tests and installed systems to their performance requirements for future control.

Open evidence reviewAll eight phases
Phase 7 · No claim finding

Changes / Claims / Disputes

Evidence reviewed: The modeling paper addresses design iterations and operating tuning. The source set does not establish a construction claims or change-order history.

Decision use and limit: Document performance impact for any future changes without presenting them as historical claims.

Open evidence limitsAll eight phases
Phase 8 · Measured data; warranty limited

Closeout / Warranty / Operations

Evidence reviewed: The laboratory data catalog publishes 2011 hourly measured, weather, and modeled datasets; the facility text describes later performance validation. Raw models and all utility, commissioning, and warranty files were not independently re-audited here.

Decision use and limit: Assign an operating owner to compare measured and modeled energy and investigate material variance.

Open evidence reviewAll eight phases
Open the existing phase-by-phase ledgerReturn to guided proof
Complete Portfolio Evidence and Lifecycle Record

The eight CFIG lifecycle phases

A phase may be evidence-supported, supporting, or requirements-only. No blank phase is presented as completed field proof.

PhaseCoverage statusProject evidenceCFIG use
1. Land and Site AcquisitionSUPPORTINGCampus and solar-resource context support orientation and performance choices.Carry site, climate, access, and renewable opportunity into the target.
2. Planning and Project DefinitionEVIDENCE-SUPPORTEDAbsolute energy target, federal mission, office needs, and living-laboratory goal.Define measurable success, baseline, meter plan, and cost limit.
3. Design and PreconstructionEVIDENCE-SUPPORTEDIntegrated modeling, orientation, daylight, ventilation, envelope, equipment, and systems.Use the requirement-to-design matrix before each design freeze.
4. Contract and ProcurementEVIDENCE-SUPPORTEDPerformance and first-cost goals shaped acquisition and team decisions.Keep performance duties, evidence, and acceptance in procurement.
5. Guaranteed Maximum Price, Cost Formation, and PurchasingEVIDENCE-SUPPORTEDNREL cost-control publication connects performance choices to capital cost.Compare energy value, first cost, life-cycle effect, and target impact.
6. Construction and Project ControlsEVIDENCE-SUPPORTEDCompleted 2010 building and installed passive, active, control, and renewable systems.Trace installation and tests to each performance requirement.
7. Changes, Claims, Disputes, and Commercial ResolutionSUPPORTINGDesign and tuning choices can be assessed; no claim opinion is offered.Record each change’s target, cost, schedule, and performance effect.
8. Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final ResolutionEVIDENCE-SUPPORTED2011 measured/model data, real-time operations, and 2020 zero-energy validation.Use variance dashboard and corrective-control action plan.
Detailed Findings

Source language beside plain language

RSF-01The performance promise was measurableTARGET / DESIGN

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

NREL modeling report and official facility record

“designed to use half the energy of an equivalent minimally code-compliant building”

NREL report NREL/CP-5500-49067, opening project description.

Open original source

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The team set a number it could test, not just a green goal.

WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE

Condition Found

An absolute target controlled design tradeoffs.

Significance

A vague promise cannot guide scope or acceptance.

Lifecycle Effect

Target → Model → Design response → Test.

Decision Window

Before concept and at each design freeze.

CFIG Intervention

Use the Performance Requirement-to-Design Traceability Matrix.

Responsible User

Owner, designer, contractor, and commissioning provider.

Consequences of Taking No Action

Features can be added without proof they meet the whole-building goal.

Expected Benefit

The target stays visible through design and cost decisions.

Evidence status: Direct official research support.
RSF-02Measured data made model variance visibleMEASUREMENT / VARIANCE

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

NREL Data Submission 40

“A Primer to the 2011 Measured and Modeled Energy Consumption Datasets”

Official dataset title and project description.

Open original source

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The owner published both expected and actual energy information for the same building.

WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE

Condition Found

The result could be compared with the promise after occupancy.

Significance

Real use can differ from design because people, equipment, controls, and weather change.

Lifecycle Effect

Model → Meter → Compare → Investigate.

Decision Window

During the first occupied year and every later reporting cycle.

CFIG Intervention

Use the Model-versus-Measured Energy Variance Dashboard.

Responsible User

Energy manager, facilities, controls, designer, and executives.

Consequences of Taking No Action

A gap can persist without a clear cause or owner.

Expected Benefit

Work focuses on the largest supported performance gaps.

Evidence status: Official dataset identity verified; raw model was not rerun.
RSF-03The building kept using performance data after openingOPERATIONS / PAYOFF

WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS

Official RSF performance text

“use real-time building performance data to study the building’s energy use and energy-saving practices”

Official text version, operations paragraph.

Open original source

PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

The facility team keeps watching the result and learning from it.

WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE

Condition Found

Closeout became a continuous measurement and improvement loop.

Significance

A strong first year does not guarantee long-term performance.

Lifecycle Effect

Operate → Measure → Tune → Retest → Share lessons.

Decision Window

Every time a material variance or operating change appears.

CFIG Intervention

Use the Measurement, Verification, and Corrective-Control Action Plan.

Responsible User

Facilities, controls, commissioning, energy manager, and occupants.

Consequences of Taking No Action

Controls drift and operating changes can slowly erase the design benefit.

Expected Benefit

Verified savings and lessons continue after project closeout.

Evidence status: Direct official laboratory record.
Tangible Options

Exactly three primary outputs

Each option is a usable work product. It names the user, the decision, and the payoff.

No.Tangible OptionUsable outputUserDecision enabledBenefit
1Performance Requirement-to-Design Traceability MatrixA matrix joining each energy, cost, comfort, daylight, ventilation, equipment, and renewable requirement to design response, model result, owner, test, and acceptance proof.Owner, designer, contractor, commissioning provider, energy manager, and facilities.Whether the design still supports the target before a choice is locked.Better protection of energy and capital goals.
2Model-versus-Measured Energy Variance DashboardA plain dashboard comparing target, model, meter, end use, weather, occupancy, plug load, control state, variance, confidence, and owner.Energy manager, facilities, controls team, designer, and executives.Which variances matter and where investigation or tuning should start.Faster, evidence-based operating improvement.
3Measurement, Verification, and Corrective-Control Action PlanA closed action log for each variance with cause hypothesis, professional review, change, test period, expected gain, actual result, and closure approval.Facilities, controls, commissioning, occupants, energy manager, and Human Authority.What to tune, repair, change, monitor, or accept.Sustained savings and reusable project learning.
Completion Gate

Release controls and honest limits

PASS — Guided proofNine exact tour steps, three-way navigation, and direct evidence cards are present.
PASS — Tangible OptionsExactly three primary outputs name a user, decision, result, and benefit.
PASS — Source separationThe source words and the CFIG interpretation are shown in different boxes.
LIMIT — Evidence boundaryCFIG does not certify energy performance or replace the owner, designer, controls specialist, commissioning provider, or LEED reviewer. The public records—not a new engineering model—support this demonstration.
LIMIT — Professional roleCFIG organizes records and decision intelligence. It does not replace licensed design, legal, safety, environmental, accounting, or regulatory professionals.
HUMAN AUTHORITYCarl Wilson controls approval, release, reliance, and any later use of this demonstration.
No guarantee: Tangible Options describe defensible decision support. They do not promise a project result or claim that CFIG performed work on the historical project.

RETURN TO THE 13-PROJECT COLLECTION

Return to CFIG Site