Anonymized sample — format and depth match a real delivered report; the project itself is fictional. Every score, scenario, and finding below runs through DurationX's actual scoring workflow against this fictional project, the same workflow every paid audit uses.
Download the sample as a PDF (illustrative, fictional project — not a client report)
Every score, benchmark position, scenario delta, and canonical finding below is 100% real, deterministic engine output. A small remainder — the plain-language "why this is weak" sentences, the committee memo's wording, and one scenario's narrative read — comes from a deterministic template, not a live model call (no paid API request was made to generate this sample). See the downloadable PDF's metadata sidecar for the exact field-by-field disclosure.
Sample decision brief
Executive read: Ready for next diligence step. Confidence: High (83/100). Primary constraint: Operational Consistency.
70 MW · 40 h target duration · US · Greenfield site, PJM interconnection queue · renewable shifting
Annotated worked example · fictional project · not a client report or project assessment
01 · Separate the signals
Readiness answers whether the assumption set supports the next diligence step. Confidence answers how well the submitted evidence supports that result. They are intentionally not blended.
02 · Follow one issue everywhere
Every weak assumption gets one stable issue ID. The Assumption Failure Map, the Path to Ready sub-panel, and the committee memo all reference the SAME id — never three independently-drifting lists.
03 · Review benchmark flags and exceptions
Timeline and CAPEX panels place declared assumptions against versioned reference data. A benchmark deviation the customer explains becomes a disclosed exception — visible, never silently accepted or silently penalized.
What is holding this project back today
Section 1 · Project snapshot
External scope note (const §6.2): DurationX audits assumption readiness for 10–100 h storage duration. Shorter durations (e.g. 8 h) may appear only as comparison scenarios, never as the primary case.
Section 2 · Readiness
Ready for next diligence step
Weighted composite across the eight assumption components defined in the DurationX rubric.
Section 2 · Confidence
Reports how well the intake supports its claims. Missing evidence lowers this axis first, readiness second — kept as two separate numbers, never blended into one grade. Score: 83/100. Evidence covers 7 of 8 components. Gaps: Delivery Maturity.
High comparison confidence from the submitted structure; customer facts are not independently verified. Evidence basis: 5 customer declarations, 4 externally-benchmarked comparisons, 0 customer-uploaded files reviewed. 1 project exception declared (1 customer-only) — self-reported origin, not independently verified. 1 benchmark metric could not be evaluated for this project.
Benchmark flags for review
Project exception: Vendor budgetary quote reflects a bulk civil-works discount from co-locating with an existing compressed-air-storage cavern. No independent cost audit has been performed against this discount.
Origin: customer · Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: high
Evidence required: Provide a dated internal calculation with its source inputs, scope boundary, owner, and approval status.
Section 2 · Sub-panel · Maintaining readiness
Current readiness: 82 — already in the Ready band. The priorities below are where additional accepted evidence would most strengthen the assessment.
Potential re-evaluation ceiling, subject to accepted evidence. These figures describe the maximum re-evaluation possible under this report's version-pinned dataset, rubric, and template versions if the requested evidence is submitted and accepted in a new, separately priced re-audit (Section 6) — never an automatic or guaranteed change to this report.
Section 2 · Sub-panel · Timeline benchmark position
Your declared timeline vs. observed data for comparable projects. Affects readiness only where noted; never blended with confidence.
Section 2 · Sub-panel · CAPEX benchmark position
Your declared CAPEX vs. observed benchmark data. A below-range position is flagged for review; readiness impact, if any, is stated below.
Section 3
The declared cycling pattern is not clearly consistent with the target duration and stated use case.
6.8 of 10.0 points at stake in this component
evidence: Basis: your submitted project intake — see Evidence manifest below
The interconnection timeline assumption is not clearly supported for the declared geography and capacity.
4.5 of 10.0 points at stake in this component
evidence: Basis: your submitted project intake — see Evidence manifest below
The basis for the stated reliability requirement and the operating assumptions expected to meet it.
2.4 of 10.0 points at stake in this component
evidence: Basis: your submitted project intake — see Evidence manifest below
Section 4
| # | Scenario · read | Readiness | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Customer baseline customer-provided · The customer's own declared configuration — the reference point every comparison below is measured against. | 82 | High |
| 2 | Duration alternative (28h) benchmark comparison · readiness delta 0 · roughly comparable to baseline under current assumptions | 82 | High |
| 3 | Alternative class: Hydrogen (electrolyzer + storage + fuel cell) benchmark comparison · readiness delta -7 · appears modestly weaker under current assumptions (Technology Class Fit -27.0, Delivery Maturity -18.0) | 75 | High |
Up to five scenarios per report: the customer's own configuration plus comparisons — 3 shown here.
Section 4 · Sub-panel · Technology-class trade-off
Real, static benchmark attributes for the technology classes compared above. A class-to-class benchmark comparison, not a vendor recommendation.
| Class | Core duration range | Cycle life | Calendar life |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compressed-air energy storage | 8–48 h | not available in this benchmark version | 30 yr |
| Hydrogen (electrolyzer + storage + fuel cell) | 24–200 h | not available in this benchmark version | 20 yr |
Appendix
Full component-level and issue-level detail behind each comparison scenario above — what changed, what was carried forward unchanged, which benchmark lookups were re-run for this scenario's own duty point versus legitimately reused from the baseline, and how every open issue moved.
Duration alternative (28h)
Changed vs baseline: target duration hours 40 → 28
Carried from baseline: Technology class, CAPEX low, CAPEX base, CAPEX high, Use case, Reliability requirement, Grid/interconnection status
Component-weighted effect +0.00 + rounding +0.00 = base readiness delta +0; benchmark-flag adjustment +0 → total readiness delta +0.
Confidence: 83 (High) → 83 (High) — Unchanged — this scenario does not vary any structured field or dataset-sourcing input the confidence model reads.
CAPEX benchmark position was re-evaluated for this scenario's own duty point: within observed central band.
Interconnection-to-energization benchmark evidence is reused unchanged from your baseline — it is not affected by duration or technology class.
Interconnection-to-COD benchmark evidence is reused unchanged from your baseline — it is not affected by duration or technology class.
Procurement-timeline evidence is reused unchanged (this scenario does not vary technology class).
Issues vs baseline: 1 resolved, 0 introduced, 0 no longer evaluable, 6 unchanged.
Resolved — CAPEX benchmark position (aggressive)
Unchanged — Value Stack Clarity (1.5 → 1.5 points at stake)
Unchanged — Reliability Case (2.4 → 2.4 points at stake)
Unchanged — Grid Realism (4.5 → 4.5 points at stake)
Unchanged — Interconnection-to-energization benchmark position (aggressive)
Unchanged — Operational Consistency (6.8 → 6.8 points at stake)
Unchanged — Delivery Maturity (2.4 → 2.4 points at stake)
The varied assumption does not affect a scored rule under the current rubric. The alternative remains in the same decision band.
A customer-declared benchmark exception recorded against your baseline is not automatically re-applied to this scenario — re-confirm applicability if the same benchmark flag appears here.
Cross-assumption reconciliation findings are evaluated against your declared baseline only; they are not re-evaluated per scenario.
Alternative class: Hydrogen (electrolyzer + storage + fuel cell)
Changed vs baseline: class key caes → hydrogen
Carried from baseline: Target duration, CAPEX low, CAPEX base, CAPEX high, Use case, Reliability requirement, Grid/interconnection status
| Component | Before | After | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology Class Fit | 100.0 | 73.0 | -27.0 |
| Delivery Maturity | 76.0 | 58.0 | -18.0 |
Component-weighted effect -7.20 + rounding +0.20 = base readiness delta -7; benchmark-flag adjustment +0 → total readiness delta -7.
Confidence: 83 (High) → 83 (High) — Unchanged — this scenario does not vary any structured field or dataset-sourcing input the confidence model reads.
CAPEX benchmark position was re-evaluated for this scenario's own duty point: aggressive.
Interconnection-to-energization benchmark evidence is reused unchanged from your baseline — it is not affected by duration or technology class.
Interconnection-to-COD benchmark evidence is reused unchanged from your baseline — it is not affected by duration or technology class.
Procurement-timeline evidence was re-evaluated for this scenario's own technology class.
Issues vs baseline: 0 resolved, 1 introduced, 0 no longer evaluable, 7 unchanged.
Introduced — Technology Class Fit (— → 5.4 points at stake)
Unchanged — CAPEX benchmark position (aggressive)
Unchanged — Value Stack Clarity (1.5 → 1.5 points at stake)
Unchanged — Reliability Case (2.4 → 2.4 points at stake)
Unchanged — Grid Realism (4.5 → 4.5 points at stake)
Unchanged — Interconnection-to-energization benchmark position (aggressive)
Unchanged — Operational Consistency (6.8 → 6.8 points at stake)
Unchanged — Delivery Maturity (2.4 → 4.2 points at stake)
A customer-declared benchmark exception recorded against your baseline is not automatically re-applied to this scenario — re-confirm applicability if the same benchmark flag appears here.
Cross-assumption reconciliation findings are evaluated against your declared baseline only; they are not re-evaluated per scenario.
Section 5
The declared class (Compressed-air energy storage) has a core viable duration range of 8–48 h. At the customer's target of 40 h, the class sits inside its core range — the technology-class fit assessment scored 100 / 100. Class maturity is early commercial; the pinned benchmark set records a cycle life not available in this benchmark version and a calendar life of 30 years for this class. These values also feed the operational-pattern and delivery-maturity assessments in Section 2. The declared use case (renewable shifting) matches the class's allowed use-case set (renewable shifting, multi day shift). Comparisons in Section 4 evaluate CLASSES against the same intake — not vendors, not brands, not specific products.
Section 6
Section 7
1 · Decision under consideration
Approval to proceed to the next diligence step
2 · Current readiness position
Readiness 82/100 (Ready for next diligence step) · Confidence High (83/100)
Readiness is 82/100 (Ready for next diligence step); confidence is High (83/100). This reading already sits in the Ready band; no next-band threshold distance applies. Readiness scores how strong the current assumption set is against the rubric; confidence scores how complete and defensible the evidence behind it is. The two are kept separate because a well-argued but thinly evidenced project, and a well-evidenced but structurally weak one, can score differently on each.
3 · Conditions before deeper diligence
4 · Principal uncertainties
5 · Project exceptions
6 · Action, evidence, and timing sequence
Owner: Customer to assign
Acceptance test: All items in "Conditions before next gate" (Section 3) are provided with the stated sourcing, the audit is re-run, and the resulting readiness score and confidence band are re-verified before the next diligence step.
Review timing: Before the next diligence gate
7 · Committee question
Does the committee approve proceeding to the next diligence step on the basis of this reading?
8 · Scope boundary
This audit does not select, rank, or recommend a vendor.
This audit does not offer a bankability opinion.
This audit does not conclude whether this project's returns will meet a target IRR or other financial threshold.
This audit does not recommend whether to invest in, fund, or acquire this project — that decision belongs to the customer and its advisers, informed by this reading of assumption readiness.
A "Ready" or "Conditionally ready" readiness state reflects assumption completeness, not independent verification that the underlying assumptions are correct.
This memo reflects report_version as delivered; a subsequent correction may reach different conclusions and supersedes this one.
Appendix
Evidence behind each material finding above: type, source, verification status, and whether it was used in scoring or only in narrative text. Every source cited by a finding above is listed here.
Operational Consistency
Grid Realism
Reliability Case
Delivery Maturity
Value Stack Clarity
CAPEX benchmark position (aggressive)
Interconnection-to-energization benchmark position (aggressive)
Appendix
Every open finding this audit produced, one canonical row each — the same issue IDs and order Section 3 and the Path to Ready sub-panel above use. Evidence status describes how this assumption was substantiated, never whether it is true.
Operational Consistency (2 distinct effects merged into this finding)
Not providedThe declared cycling pattern is not clearly consistent with the target duration and stated use case.
Source: Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: High · Re-evaluation ceiling: up to +6.8 points
Not evaluable — this check measures declared-assumption completeness, not a public benchmark comparison.
Leaving this unresolved keeps 6.8 readiness points at risk here and leaves the assumption open to challenge at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: A dispatch/cycling profile reconciled with the declared technical performance parameters — the same figures used consistently across the submission.
Acceptance test: A dispatch/cycling profile reconciled with the declared technical performance parameters — the same figures used consistently across the submission.
Grid Realism (2 distinct effects merged into this finding)
Not independently verifiedThe interconnection timeline assumption is not clearly supported for the declared geography and capacity.
Source: Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: Medium · Re-evaluation ceiling: up to +4.5 points
Not evaluable — this check measures declared-assumption completeness, not a public benchmark comparison.
Leaving this unresolved keeps 4.5 readiness points at risk here and leaves the assumption open to challenge at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: Interconnection evidence: queue position or application reference, requested capacity, and a dated basis for the expected energization timeline.
Acceptance test: Interconnection evidence: queue position or application reference, requested capacity, and a dated basis for the expected energization timeline.
Reliability Case
Not independently verifiedNot yet established: the basis for the stated reliability requirement and the operating assumptions expected to meet it.
Source: Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: Medium · Re-evaluation ceiling: up to +2.4 points
Not evaluable — this check measures declared-assumption completeness, not a public benchmark comparison.
Leaving this unresolved keeps 2.4 readiness points at risk here and leaves the assumption open to challenge at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: The basis for the stated reliability requirement and the operating assumptions expected to meet it.
Acceptance test: The basis for the stated reliability requirement and the operating assumptions expected to meet it.
Delivery Maturity (2 distinct effects merged into this finding)
Not independently verifiedNot yet established: delivery plan evidence: procurement route status and dated milestones toward the planned commissioning window.
Source: Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: Medium · Re-evaluation ceiling: up to +2.4 points
Not evaluable — this check measures declared-assumption completeness, not a public benchmark comparison.
Leaving this unresolved keeps 2.4 readiness points at risk here and leaves the assumption open to challenge at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: Delivery plan evidence: procurement route status and dated milestones toward the planned commissioning window.
Acceptance test: Delivery plan evidence: procurement route status and dated milestones toward the planned commissioning window.
Value Stack Clarity
Not independently verifiedNot yet established: a breakdown of the intended value streams and the dated assumption behind each one.
Source: Customer-declared · Residual uncertainty: Medium · Re-evaluation ceiling: up to +1.5 points
Not evaluable — this check measures declared-assumption completeness, not a public benchmark comparison.
Leaving this unresolved keeps 1.5 readiness points at risk here and leaves the assumption open to challenge at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: A breakdown of the intended value streams and the dated assumption behind each one.
Acceptance test: A breakdown of the intended value streams and the dated assumption behind each one.
CAPEX benchmark position (aggressive)
Not independently verifiedVendor budgetary quote reflects a bulk civil-works discount from co-locating with an existing compressed-air-storage cavern. No independent cost audit has been performed against this discount.
Source: Derived comparison · Residual uncertainty: High
aggressive against PNNL 2024 at 100 MW × 24 h.
This benchmark position does not change the readiness score today, but an unresolved deviation may be challenged at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: Provide a dated internal calculation with its source inputs, scope boundary, owner, and approval status.
Acceptance test: A revised or substantiated value that no longer flags as aggressive against the public benchmark.
Interconnection-to-energization benchmark position (aggressive)
Not independently verifiedThe interconnection timeline assumption is not clearly supported for the declared geography and capacity.
Source: Derived comparison · Residual uncertainty: Low
Interconnection-to-energization benchmark position (aggressive) — see the Benchmark flags panel (Section 2) for the exact evaluated position.
This benchmark position does not change the readiness score today, but an unresolved deviation may be challenged at the next diligence step.
Evidence required next: Provide a dated, benchmark-consistent justification, or accept that this position may be challenged at the next diligence step.
Acceptance test: A revised or substantiated value that no longer flags as aggressive against the public benchmark.
Section 8
DurationX provides a vendor-independent, human-quality-controlled assessment of the readiness of assumptions submitted for a long-duration energy-storage decision. The assessment is tied to the project, location, inputs, benchmark dataset, methodology, rubric, and report versions identified in the report and to information available on the stated evaluation date. DurationX does not independently verify every customer-provided fact and does not provide engineering design or sign-off, fire or electrical safety certification, interconnection approval, permitting advice, vendor selection or procurement advice, legal or tax advice, investment advice, a valuation, a bankability opinion, or project due diligence. Scores and labels are not probabilities of success and do not guarantee cost, schedule, performance, availability, revenue, returns, financing, regulatory approval, or any other outcome. Public and licensed benchmark information may be incomplete, delayed, model-based, geography-specific, or subject to source restrictions and revision. Missing or non-comparable data are reported as not evaluable and must not be interpreted as favourable or unfavourable evidence. Decisions remain the responsibility of the customer and its qualified advisers.
Numeric scoring is deterministic and version-pinned; no AI is involved in that calculation. Narrative explanations are produced under a version-pinned AI process — the model, prompt, and template versions are recorded on every report — and are reviewed by a person before release.
This is an illustrative sample — it is not linked to a real delivered report and does not carry a verifiable signature. A real DurationX report is Ed25519-signed and can be independently checked at /verify using its report ID and verification reference; see the methodology page for how that works.
Technical provenance
These are the exact machine-readable version pins this fictional sample was generated under — shown here, in one technical-provenance block, rather than scattered through the customer-facing sections above. A real report's report ID and verify ref resolve at /verify; this sample's two identifiers are fixed placeholders and will not.
Ready to run this on your own project?
Request CAPEX Readiness Audit