Scheme Pathway Planner and Compliance Roadmap | Knowledge Base

Overview

A tool that takes a product’s characteristics and target scheme registrations and generates a structured, step-by-step compliance pathway. The output is a personalised roadmap showing every action required — from laboratory testing to scheme registration — in the recommended sequence, with estimated costs, lead times, dependencies between steps, and recommended laboratories and certification bodies at each stage.

This is the planning tool counterpart to the eligibility checker. The eligibility checker answers “what do I need?” and the pathway planner answers “how do I get there, in what order, and at what cost?” Together they replace a consulting engagement for straightforward compliance scoping.

User Stories

As a manufacturer new to the ANZ market, I want a step-by-step plan showing exactly what I need to do to register my product for VEU Activity 44 and SRES, in the right order, so I can start executing without asking EnergyAE for guidance.
As a manufacturer’s compliance manager, I want to see the total estimated cost and timeline from start to registration so I can budget and set expectations with management.
As an EnergyAE consultant, I want to generate a pathway plan during a client call and share it immediately so the client has a concrete document to act on.
As a manufacturer client, I want to download my compliance roadmap as a PDF so I can share it internally with my product development team.
As a project manager, I want to see which steps are on the critical path so I know where to focus effort to minimise time to registration.

Inputs

The pathway planner takes its starting inputs from the eligibility checker output (preferred) or from a fresh questionnaire if no eligibility check has been run.

Product and target scheme inputs

Product details (from product database or manual): system type, capacity, refrigerant, tank volume, target market
Target schemes: user selects which registrations to pursue (from the eligible schemes identified by the checker)
Existing certifications/tests already completed: user confirms what has already been done (pre-populates from product compliance tracker if linked)

Planning preferences

Preferred laboratory (optional, user can specify or leave to recommendations)
Preferred timeline: no preference / as fast as possible / within 6 months / within 12 months
Budget constraint: none / under $20k / under $50k / over $50k
Whether to pursue all targets in parallel or sequence targets to minimise cost (e.g. testing for SRES first and using the same test report for VEU)

Pathway Generation Logic

The planner generates the pathway from a rules engine maintained by Alastair. The rules define:

What testing is required for each scheme
Which tests can be shared across multiple schemes (e.g. one AS/NZS 5125.1 test report can cover SRES, VEU, and ESS)
Which steps must precede others (dependencies)
Which steps can be run in parallel
Recommended service providers at each step

The developer should build the rules engine in the same maintainable format as the eligibility checker rules — Alastair must be able to update it without code changes.

Standard compliance phases for a residential HPWH targeting AU schemes

These phases are illustrative. Alastair to provide the complete rules before build.

Phase 1: Pre-testing

Confirm product configuration to be tested (model number, software version, accessories)
Obtain laboratory quote and book test slot
Prepare sample (shipping to lab, documentation)

Phase 2: Laboratory testing

AS/NZS 5125.1 performance test (required for SRES, VEU, ESS)
AS/NZS 5125.1 Appendix H MEPS test (required for GEMS/MEPS compliance)
Refrigerant safety testing (if R290 or R32)
Electrical safety testing (required for Watermark)

Phase 3: Certification

Watermark certification (plumbing fixture compliance, required for AU market sale)
GEMS registration (energy labelling, mandatory for AU market)
AS/NZS 4234 simulation (done by EnergyAE — generates zone ratings for SRES and VEU)

Phase 4: Scheme registration

SRES STC registration with Clean Energy Regulator
VEU Activity 44 registration with ESC Victoria
ESS HEAB registration with NSW ESC (if applicable)

Each phase has: status (not started / in progress / complete), estimated cost range, estimated lead time, assigned organisation or contact, and a link to the relevant checklist.

Pathway Output

Timeline view (primary output)

A visual timeline showing all steps on a horizontal time axis with:

Steps shown as bars spanning their estimated duration
Dependencies shown as arrows between dependent steps
Parallel steps shown on separate rows
Critical path highlighted (the sequence of steps that determines the minimum total timeline)
Today’s date marked as a vertical line
Estimated completion date for each scheme registration marked

The timeline is not an interactive Gantt editor — it is a read-only visual generated from the rules engine. Users cannot drag or reschedule steps in v1.

Step-by-step checklist

Below the timeline, a checklist of all steps in recommended sequence:

Each step shows:

Step name and description
Phase category
Why this step is required (plain English, linking to the relevant scheme rule)
Depends on: which prior steps must be complete before this can begin
Estimated cost range (Alastair to populate)
Estimated lead time (weeks)
Recommended service provider(s): laboratory name, certification body, or EnergyAE for simulation steps
Contact details for recommended providers
Status toggle (not started / in progress / complete) for the user to track progress
Document attachment slot for the user to upload evidence

Cost summary

Total estimated compliance cost broken down by phase and scheme. Shown as:

Per-phase cost table
Total cost range (min and max)
Cost attribution per scheme (how much of the total is required for SRES vs VEU vs ESS, accounting for shared steps)
“Value unlocked” column: estimated total certificate value per scheme over 3 years for context

Shareable / exportable output

PDF export: full pathway document with timeline, checklist, and cost summary — suitable for sending to a manufacturer as a scoping deliverable
Link sharing: generate a shareable link so the pathway can be viewed by someone without a platform account (read-only, expires after 30 days)

Progress Tracking Integration

If the user is managing this product in the product compliance tracker, the checklist status in the pathway planner syncs with the compliance tracker checklist items. Steps completed in the tracker are marked complete in the planner view. Alastair to decide whether these should be the same record or separate but synced.

Out of Scope (v1)

Interactive Gantt editing (read-only timeline in v1)
Automated reminders or notifications as steps fall due
Integration with laboratory booking systems
Multi-product pathway (one pathway per product in v1)
International schemes outside AU/NZ
Cost tracking (actuals vs estimates) — this lives in the product compliance tracker

Data Model (indicative)

compliance_pathways
  pathway_id
  product_id (nullable)
  user_id
  created_at
  target_schemes (array)
  existing_certifications (JSON: what's already complete)
  planning_preferences (JSON)
  generated_steps (JSON array: step definitions with sequence, cost, lead time, dependencies)
  step_statuses (JSON: current status per step)
  share_token (nullable, for shared link)
  share_expires_at (nullable)
  pdf_generated_at (nullable)

Acceptance Criteria

Open Questions

Alastair to produce the complete pathway rules before the developer builds the engine. This requires: a list of all compliance steps per scheme, their dependencies, cost ranges, and recommended service providers. This is the pre-build deliverable with the most domain specificity.
Should the pathway planner be the same feature as the product compliance tracker checklist, or a separate upstream planning tool that feeds into the tracker? There is significant overlap in what they track. The distinction is: the planner is generated and advisory (what you should do), while the tracker is operational (what you have done). They share the same step definitions but have different UIs and purposes.
Should the shareable link require the recipient to create an account to view, or be fully public (read-only)?
For the “value unlocked” column in the cost summary: should this use the certificate estimator calculations, or a simplified per-scheme typical value?