Gate B Review
How to complete Gate B + Final review for VEU + ESS Large Commercial modelling applications
The review process for Large Commercial AS/NZS 4234 modelling and submission projects is structured around six gates. Each gate has a defined owner, a defined entry condition, a defined deliverable, and a defined exit condition. No gate can be skipped, and no later gate can begin until the earlier gate is signed off.
Gate model
| Gate | Purpose | Owner | Tool | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gate B1 | Audit file presence and naming | Peer (junior allowed) | TRNSYS tool Validation Report macro | Pass / Fail |
| Gate B2 | Audit file content + cross-document consistency | Senior peer / director | Claude Large Commercial Gate B Review + B2 content checklist | Pass / Fail |
| Final Review | Director sign-off before lodgement | Director | Email with attached B1, B2, Gate A reports | Approve / Hold |
| Closeout | Project deliverables complete | Director | Closeout checklist | Closed |
Claude review tools
EnergyAE uses Claude-assisted review tools at Gate A and Gate B. These produce structured review reports that are filed in the corresponding Gate folder.
Reproducibility: review tools live at
/Tools/Reviews/on SharePoint with a documented run procedure, a “tested on” line in the README, and no dependencies on a specific user’s local machine path. Reviewer requests must use SharePoint paths, notC:\Users\...paths. If a review tool fails to run on your machine, debug — do not fall back on manual review without first flagging to the director, and never on submission day. (AE574 had a Claude review script fail on Harry’s machine the day before submission, which forced a manual review and introduced risk.)
Peer review checks the Claude reports and looks specifically for items Claude may have missed: abstract things like tank drawing provenance, schematic readability, installation manual coherence, modelling matching the actual system, and any cross-document consistency that requires human judgement.
General rules
- If any check fails, stop reviewing and return to the project lead. Peer review describes the problem, project lead fixes, runs Claude self-review again, then resubmits to peer review.
- All checks must pass to proceed to the next gate. Exceptions are minor cosmetic issues that do not flow into modelling or scheme compliance.
- For each FAIL, state the specific issue. Be precise about the file and the discrepancy.
- If anything in a project changes after a gate has been passed, return to the relevant gate. Tell the peer reviewer what has changed and consider all upstream impacts. A modelling change after Gate B requires Gate A re-run. A non-modelling document change after Gate B requires only Gate B re-run.
Gate B1 — Presence checks
Gate B1 runs after audit file assembly. It is a deterministic check of file presence, naming, and macro outputs. Junior staff can complete it.
Gate B1 confirms:
- TRNSYS tool Validation Report macro has been run and passes (see Commercial TRNSYS Tool)
- Audit folder structure matches VEU Audit Files and ESS Audit Files
- All mandatory files per VEU Audit Files and ESS Audit Files are present
- File naming follows
Brand_Model_Suffix.extconvention for every file HPdata.xlsxnormalisation workings file is present inTRNSYS_Files/- No ZIP files in the TESSA folder
- Auditor Briefing Sheet is present
- Specifications sheet, ESC form, Product Upload form generated
- Pump performance plot PDF is present
- Performance Map Coverage figure is present
Gate B2 — Content checks
Gate B2 verifies that the contents of the audit pack tell the right story. It catches the defects that recent projects have demonstrated junior Gate B does not catch.
Mandatory B2 content checks
| # | Check | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| B2-1 | Brand consistency | Brand on every document, schematic, manual, data plate, EN 14511 report, and Cover Sheet matches the registered brand on the PIC. (AE574) |
| B2-2 | Entity consistency | Legal entity on letters of authorisation, declarations, EN 14511 report registered address, and the manufacturer / distributor distinction matches the PIC. (AE574) |
| B2-3 | Address consistency | Registered address on EN 14511 report, declarations, install manuals, and Cover Sheet matches the PIC. (AE574) |
| B2-4 | Model name character-exact | Every model name appears identically (every character, every hyphen, every digit) on every document. Run a literal text comparison. (AE574, AE523) |
| B2-5 | Manual capacity sanity | HP rated capacity in the install manual matches the EN 14511 test report (no factor-of-10 errors). (AE523: 3.56 kW vs 35.6 kW) |
| B2-6 | PDF metadata | Open Document → Properties for every PDF; confirm title and author. (AE523 Flex 18 metadata error) |
| B2-7 | Tank drawing provenance | Confirm the tank drawing is the client’s own dimensioned drawing — look for client logo, date, document number. Not a reference image. (AE523) |
| B2-8 | Pump labelling | Pump performance plot is present with labelled axes, labelled curves (P1, P2 explained), and c0/c1 derivation. (AE574) |
| B2-9 | Standby power evidence | Specifications sheet entry for standby power has a defined source reference (page of EN 14511 report). (AE632) |
| B2-10 | Control evidence | Control declaration matches modelled settings: setpoint, deadband, legionella temperature and frequency. (AE632, AE523) |
| B2-11 | Refrigerant charge | Refrigerant type and charge present in Specifications and Com_Results sheets, with data plate or test report source. (AE523) |
| B2-12 | Element capacity per system | Total intended element capacity matches the client’s confirmed intent in the PIC and the Product Upload Form. (AE523 portal discrepancy) |
| B2-13 | Tank coverage | AS/NZS 4692.1 report covers every tank variant in the application; otherwise an Equivalence Declaration is present. (AE523) |
| B2-14 | AS/NZS 2712 coverage | AS/NZS 2712 certificate present for every individual tank below 700L. (AE523 — per tank, not combined) |
| B2-15 | EN 14511 transformation | HPdata.xlsx is present, complete, and the transformation from raw test data to performance map is documented end-to-end. (AE574) |
| B2-16 | Performance map coverage | Performance Map Coverage figure shows AS/NZS 4234 simulation hours fall within (or close to) the test matrix. |
| B2-17 | Signatures | Every declaration is signed on every required sheet by the correct party. (AE523, AE574) |
| B2-18 | Cross-doc dates | Document dates are coherent (test report before declarations; declarations before submission; authorisation letter dated within scheme allowance). |
| B2-19 | Auditor Cover Sheet | Cover Sheet correctly explains brand/entity/address relationships, document naming, and any non-standard modelling inputs. (AE574) |
| B2-20 | Tool version stamp | Tool version in Specifications sheet matches the most recent approved tool version. |
Final Review
Once Gate B2 has passed and the project lead is confident, request Final Review from the director.
If unsure about anything in the application, the project is not ready for Final Review. Resolve with peer and director first.
Final Review process:
- Send an email to the director stating the project is ready for submission. Use the Final Review Request Email Template.
- Attach: PIC, Gate A report, Gate B1 report, Gate B2 report.
- State explicitly that the project has been self-reviewed and peer-reviewed and is ready for submission.
Once director approval is received, lodge the application.
Outputs filed at each gate
| Gate | Files saved to |
|---|---|
| Gate B1 | /Projects/AExxx/03-Gate-B1/ValidationReport.pdf, GateB1_AExxx_YYYYMMDD.xlsx |
| Gate B2 | /Projects/AExxx/03-Gate-B2/ClaudeReport.pdf, GateB2_AExxx_YYYYMMDD.xlsx |
| Final | /Projects/AExxx/05-Submission/FinalReview_email.eml |
| Closeout | /Projects/AExxx/06-Closeout/ClosedoutChecklist.xlsx |