Illustrated workflows
See the records, decisions and handovers
Explore how an operating task uses data, professional calculations and human or system action. The examples use simulated records to explain the method; they are not customer-performance claims.
01Energy reconciliation and reporting
+
WORK EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT A PRODUCT TEST
Energy reconciliation and reporting
Bills, main meters, submeters and production records come from different sources. Align their periods and measurement boundaries before explaining changes in a reviewable report.
Inputs
The following records and numbers are synthetic teaching data; time intervals include the start and exclude the end. The question: a bill shows 144 MWh and a calendar-month meter total 150 MWh. Does the 6 MWh difference indicate waste?
Input records: compare matching periods
| Record | Period | Energy quantity and record status |
|---|---|---|
| B-01 Bill | 26 Aug 2026 00:00 → 26 Sep 2026 00:00 | 144.0 MWh; billed energy |
| M-01 Calendar-month main meter | 1 Sep 2026 00:00 → 1 Oct 2026 00:00 | 150.0 MWh; complete records |
| M-02 Main meter for the billing period | 26 Aug 2026 00:00 → 26 Sep 2026 00:00 | 144.6 MWh; reaggregated hourly records |
| S-A Production area A | Same billing period | 80.0 MWh; complete |
| S-B Production area B | Same billing period | 50.0 MWh; 8 hours missing on 12 Sep, not imputed |
| S-C Common loads | Same billing period | 10.0 MWh; complete, with no overlap in the metering hierarchy |
Report extract: calculations and open questions
| Comparison | Calculation and finding |
|---|---|
| Calendar month versus bill | 150.0 − 144.0 = 6.0 MWh, but the periods differ. This is not a like-for-like difference. |
| Aligned main meter versus bill | 144.6 − 144.0 = 0.6 MWh. Metering, billing boundaries and record differences remain to be checked. |
| Main meter versus available submeters | 144.6 − (80.0 + 50.0 + 10.0) = 4.6 MWh. S-B is incomplete, so this is not a confirmed loss. |
The products prepare the period mapping, calculations and missing-data appendix. Site staff add the missing S-B records and evidence; specialists resolve disputed metering boundaries. Add the appendix to the existing energy report through export, import or a configured interface, as appropriate. The next reporting cycle reuses the confirmed basis.
Resulting work records
An energy report with source records, comparable periods, explained changes, unresolved differences and next steps.
- Required next
- Recover missing S-B data, check billing and meter boundaries, and retain who revised the record, when and why.
Adoption and existing tools
Keep existing EMS, reporting and expert tools. Use authorized exports or interfaces. Delivery covers the selected software, input mappings, report configuration and agreed support.
View the relevant products and deliveryAssess whether it is worth using
Compare preparation, review, rework and delivery across a complete reporting cycle, as well as unresolved differences. Faster reporting is not evidence of energy savings.
The foundation is energy measurement, alignment of objects and time periods, and industrial computation. This teaching example makes the comparison and results visible; the proposal specifies the selected version and scope of site delivery.
02Prepare an exception case for specialist handover
+
WORK EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT A PRODUCT TEST
Prepare an exception case for specialist handover
Bring equipment records, applicable documents, completed checks and open questions into one task, so site staff spend less time repeating explanations and specialists spend less time preparing.
Inputs
All equipment, records, versions and times below are synthetic. UNIT-07 in equipment family M-A has three alerts in service case SVC-DEMO-17. In this example a specialist has confirmed manual MAN-A-R3 for configuration F-02. A separate branch covers unconfirmed applicability.
Exception handover SVC-DEMO-17
| Field | Illustrative record |
|---|---|
| Event and sources | 2026-10-14 07:55–08:00 (UTC+08:00): alerts A-01, A-02 and A-03 are grouped in the original case for review, without assuming a shared cause. |
| Equipment and documentation | UNIT-07 / M-A / F-02; MAN-A-R3 applicability is confirmed, with source and confirmation state retained in the case. |
| Completed checks | CHK-DEMO-01 confirms all three records refer to UNIT-07. CHK-DEMO-02 confirms a common timezone and sortable timestamps. These are record checks, not a device diagnosis. |
| Preparation completed by the product | Match equipment to the manual under confirmed rules, list alerts, checks and sources, identify missing operating-condition records for 07:55–08:00, and prepare a handover attachment with open items. |
| Handover state | At 08:10 the illustrative specialist accepts the material and requests operating-condition records for that period. ACK-DEMO-01 remains in the original case. This is not a response-time commitment, and the case remains unresolved. |
| Next human work | Site staff add facts; the specialist assesses sufficiency and the next check; the case owner maintains status. The product updates the attachment without closing the case merely because preparation is complete. |
Resulting work records
A handover record for the exception case, including known facts, sources, missing information, questions requiring specialist judgment, and acceptance and feedback status.
- Completed in this example
- Equipment/document matching, event grouping, completed checks and gaps are recorded, and the specialist has accepted the material.
- Still unresolved
- Operating-condition records are missing, the cause is undetermined and the case remains open.
- Unconfirmed-document branch
- If MAN-A-R3 applicability is unconfirmed, prepare events and gaps but mark applicability as pending and do not use the manual for operating instructions. If nobody accepts the task, show awaiting acceptance separately.
Adoption and existing tools
Repeat record matching and preparation using confirmed rules. Specialists maintain those rules and address questions requiring new judgment rather than rebuilding each record. Retain the existing service case, equipment protection and site operating responsibilities; record notification separately from acceptance.
View the relevant products and deliveryAssess whether it is worth using
Check document correctness, omissions and the combined preparation burden on site staff and experts. If experts must redo every output, improvement has not been established.
Objects, records, specialist computation and interfaces provide foundations. This example explains task responsibilities; it does not demonstrate round-the-clock expert service or tested support for a particular language or equipment model.
03Solar performance and maintenance
+
WORK EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT A PRODUCT TEST
Solar exceptions, task preparation and follow-up
Keep existing alerts and work orders while connecting records, action evidence and recovery checks that still require repeated investigation. Owners review asset outcomes; O&M teams review work and service outcomes.
Inputs
These figures come from this site’s solar illustration: INV-07 produces 76 kW at about 800 W/m² against an illustrative 100 kW reference, rising to 96 kW after maintenance. They show how one event supports owner and O&M work, not customer operating results.
Shared event record PV-DEMO-07
| Field | Illustrative record |
|---|---|
| Asset and main record | Site A / INV-07; existing work order MT-024 |
| Initial performance | About 800 W/m² and approximately comparable temperature; 76 kW against an illustrative 100 kW reference |
| Initial finding | 76 ÷ 100 − 1 = −24%; a performance gap, not a root-cause diagnosis |
| Checks and next step | No recorded curtailment in this example; the authorized maintenance lead approves a field check for shading and surface conditions |
| Field feedback | Dust buildup found and addressed under maintenance procedures; new facts and actions recorded |
| Follow-up | 96 kW under comparable conditions; 96 ÷ 100 − 1 = −4%, with residual gap and recurrence left for follow-up |
| Cost and revenue | Repair costs, time-integrated energy and settlement terms are absent; no monetary return is calculated |
One event, two uses
| Reader | Work output |
|---|---|
| Asset owner | Evidence for intervention, responsibilities and cost approvals; a 4% gap remains after maintenance and requires a decision on further investigation. |
| O&M team | Continue using MT-024. The product prepares record summaries and review calculations; staff add new findings, actions and reasons work could not be completed. |
This teaching example shows responsibilities around one work order and its attachments. Specify whether actual integration uses automatic writeback, attachment import or manual transfer; this page does not claim duplicate entry has already been eliminated.
Resulting work records
Connected event records, a task for review and post-action checks, supporting maintenance decisions and service reporting.
- Not established
- One fewer visit does not necessarily improve O&M profit; recovered power is not settled revenue.
Adoption and existing tools
Existing monitoring, performance models and work orders retain their roles; add only the missing part. Storage requires separate checks of dispatch instructions, SOC, reserves and equipment limits rather than a solar-output model.
View the relevant products and deliveryAssess whether it is worth using
Assess total handling time, rework, missed issues and review effort, and whether improvement affects costs or benefits retained by the buyer. Adequate existing tools do not need another product.
This is an illustrative workflow, not a renewable-energy customer case. Previous industrial methods provide a foundation for adaptation; solar and storage models and system interfaces require their own validation.
04Utility supply and production demand
+
WORK EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT A PRODUCT TEST
Utility supply, demand and operating arrangements
Bring production timing, energy demand, networks and equipment constraints into the same analysis, comparing arrangements that can actually be implemented. Existing controls retain their responsibilities.
Inputs
Synthetic teaching problem: two processes share a steam header. Compare fixed loads and timing constraints only, without pressure transients, thermal inertia, equipment start-stop or detailed process dynamics. Supply conditions and scheduling windows are assumed confirmed for this example.
Inputs: healthy equipment does not guarantee a feasible schedule
| Input | Process A | Process B |
|---|---|---|
| Earliest start | 08:00 | 08:10 |
| Duration | 30 min, uninterrupted | 20 min, uninterrupted |
| Steam demand | 4 t/h | 6 t/h |
| Latest finish | 08:40 | 09:00 |
| Available header capacity | Shared: 8 t/h | Shared: 8 t/h |
Calculation output: compare feasible candidates
| Arrangement | A / B timing | Peak and result |
|---|---|---|
| Original | A 08:00–08:30; B 08:10–08:30 | 10 t/h: overlapping demand 4+6>8 exceeds capacity. |
| Candidate 1 | A 08:00–08:30; B 08:30–08:50 | 6 t/h: satisfies the stated start, finish and capacity constraints. |
| Candidate 2 | A 08:30–09:00; B 08:10–08:30 | 6 t/h: capacity is sufficient, but A misses its 08:40 deadline; reject. |
Steam use is 4×30/60=2 t and 6×20/60=2 t, still 4 t in total. Candidate 1 reduces concurrent peak demand; this alone is not an energy saving. Production and utility leads check site constraints before adoption, with actual timing, demand and deviations feeding the next calculation.
Resulting work records
A comparison grounded in inputs and constraints: applicable operating arrangements, required approvals and post-action checks.
- Feasible candidate
- Candidate 1 satisfies the stated constraints; the responsible team checks for additional site constraints.
- Rejected
- The original exceeds header capacity; candidate 2 misses the deadline for process A.
- After operation
- Record actual timing, supply, output and reasons for deviations for subsequent calculations.
Adoption and existing tools
First check whether existing controls, dispatch and expert tools can handle the task through configuration. Where a gap remains, select the relevant application or model without assuming another control platform is needed.
See how applications use product capabilitiesAssess whether it is worth using
Customers care about supply, production and cost; equipment makers care whether added capability helps sales, delivery or service. Assess each party’s value separately.
Prior steel energy coordination and utility projects provide methodological evidence, with outcomes attributed to their original scope. This example does not establish compatibility with any new equipment or process.
05Storage instructions and operating limits
+
WORK EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT A PRODUCT TEST
Storage instructions, limits and execution
Align the authorized request, current equipment limits and actual records. Distinguish output correctly constrained by those limits from missing evidence or unexplained execution differences.
Inputs
Synthetic records are assumed to refer to the same object and time. At 2026-10-14 14:00:00 (UTC+08:00), BESS-DEMO-01 has a 60 kW discharge request, a reported valid discharge limit of 40 kW, actual output of 40 kW, SOC of 32% and a reserve floor of 30%. The 40 kW limit comes from its record, not from SOC.
Review record BESS-CHECK-01
| Field | Illustrative record |
|---|---|
| Object and effective time | BESS-DEMO-01; 2026-10-14 14:00:00, UTC+08:00. |
| Request source | REQ-DEMO-01: discharge 60 kW; valid 13:55–14:05. |
| Limit source | LIMIT-DEMO-01: controller-reported limit 40 kW; configuration L-DEMO-1; the same validity window. Retain the limit basis for review. |
| Measured-state source | MEAS-DEMO-01: output 40 kW and SOC 32% at 14:00:00; RES-DEMO-01: reserve floor 30%. |
| Supported conclusion | A request of 60, valid limit of 40 and output of 40 are consistent in this example. Falling short of the request alone does not establish a fault or prove the limit policy optimal. |
| Invalid-source branch | If a source is missing, expired or refers to another object, mark the output difference as unexplained and refer it to the agreed control or equipment support team. Site O&M provides equipment details and timestamps. |
| Unexplained-execution branch | If output is 20 kW, BESS-CHECK-02 records the unexplained difference from the 40 kW limit. The case remains unresolved while awaiting acceptance by the control or equipment support team. |
| Record and action | Return findings, sources and handover state to the existing operating or maintenance record. Agreed roles investigate further; no automatic dispatch or equipment-command change follows. |
Resulting work records
A timestamped instruction-review record with sources, explained differences, open checks and responsibilities.
- Completed
- Distinguish output explained by the active limit from differences requiring investigation.
- Requires a site-specific solution
- Equipment rules, instruction authority, models and the way findings return to the workflow.
Adoption and existing tools
Keep existing EMS, PCS/BMS, dispatch and manufacturer services, adding the data and review application needed.
Discuss a review like this for an operating siteAssess whether it is worth using
Assess whether repeated queries and misinterpretation decrease and issues reach the right team. Evaluate technical maintenance outcomes separately from market revenue.
This illustrates a rule-based review, not a tested battery optimizer, trading strategy or production control interface.