Read-only demonstration. Four sanitised or hypothetical engineering projects. Each states its own validation status; nothing shown is engineer approved.

ENERGY & BUILDING-CODE COMPLIANCE · SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA (HYPOTHETICAL SITE; TITLE 24 CZ 3, ASHRAE 3C)

San Francisco Office Energy & Compliance

The WF1 London office (single storey, 756 m² conditioned) was re-assessed as if built in San Francisco without changing its geometry. Hexanta ran code pre-checks, design loads, PV/battery sizing and design options offline, and drove the native IESVE 2026 Title 24 2025 performance workflow end-to-end twice. IESVE reported 'complies' both times; Hexanta's engineering review rejected both results because the margin is dominated by Standard-design fan energy. The official report, PV/SARA and the ASHRAE 90.1 PRM were not completed before the trial licence expired.

IESVE ApacheHVAC plant network of the Title 24 run 2 proposed model, beside a plot of site electricity by end use, Standard against Proposed. — **Project evidence**Native IESVE ApacheHVAC screenshot (compliance-NATIVE-T24-RUN2-20261025, cropped) and a Hexanta plot of the run 2 Results Summary; result NOT ACCEPTED

Native Title 24 2025 workflow automated end-to-end in IESVE; software 'complies' result rejected on engineering review

Native T24 runs

2 (both rejected)

Fan share of run 2 margin

94.5 % (≈3 % without)

Proposed EUI

90.2 kWh/m²·yr (not accepted)

PV needed

≥ 21.1 kWdc (offline)

Discipline: Energy & building-code compliance
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA (hypothetical site; Title 24 CZ 3, ASHRAE 3C)
Building: Office (synthetic — WF1 London Run 4 building relocated)
Stage: Design validation (provisional)
Verification status: NOT COMPLIANT / NOT ACCEPTED — native Title 24 runs rejected; official report not generated; ASHRAE PRM blocked
Engineering approval: OUTSTANDING — no compliance certification or engineer approval

Objectives

Re-assess the WF1 building for San Francisco (Title 24 2025 CZ 3, ASHRAE 3C) without changing geometry
Run Title 24 2025 prescriptive pre-checks, ventilation, PV and battery sizing offline with traceable rules
Drive the native Title 24 2025 performance workflow in IESVE and review its result independently
Prepare the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM (LEED v5) route
Route every result to qualified-engineer review; claim nothing the evidence does not support

Overview

No compliance claimed

No Title 24 certification or compliance PASS is claimed. IESVE printed 'This design DOES comply with Title 24 - 2025 compliance methodology' for both native runs; both were NOT ACCEPTED on engineering review (D-CX-24, D-CX-25, D-CX-28). The official compliance report (PRF-01) was not generated and the ASHRAE 90.1 PRM was blocked by licence expiry. Engineering approval: OUTSTANDING.

Brief

Re-assess the synthetic WF1 London office as if built in San Francisco, keeping geometry unchanged: code pre-checks, design loads, PV and battery sizing, design options, and native IESVE Title 24 2025 and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 PRM runs, all routed to engineer review.

Code editions

California energy code: Title 24 Part 6, 2025 edition (nonresidential), performance and prescriptive routes
ASHRAE: 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM (+ addendum cr) for LEED v5 EAp2 Option 1; engine rules packs also exist for 90.1-2016 and 90.1-2022 (no 2022 mode in VE 2026)
LEED: LEED v5 BD+C Energy & Atmosphere — blocked (needs PRM results)
San Francisco local: 2025 local requirements (all-electric, Green Building Code energy items) — blocked
Climate: Title 24 climate zone 3; ASHRAE 169 zone 3C

Verification summary

11 recorded results · 8 from the native tool · 1 PASS · 4 PARTIAL · 2 FAIL · 3 BLOCKED · 1 NOT TESTED

Native evidence and completeness matrix → Verified downloads →

Engineering findings

The complete native Title 24 2025 performance workflow (templates, building data, CEC construction mapping, Standard model generation, Proposed and Standard annual simulations, Results Summary, battery step) was driven end-to-end in IESVE 2026 on the synthetic San Francisco scenario.
IESVE reported 'This design DOES comply with Title 24 - 2025 compliance methodology' in both runs; Hexanta's review rejected both (D-CX-24, D-CX-25, D-CX-28).
Run 2: 94.5 % of the 47.11 $/ft²·yr LSC margin comes from Standard indoor fans (75.12 vs 7.27 MWh; about 7,640 equivalent full-load hours against 5,818 h availability); about 3 % margin without it. To be confirmed against the 2025 nonresidential ACM manual or with the software vendor.
Automated plausibility triggers (unmet hours > 150, fan EUI > 40 kWh/m²·yr, Standard/Proposed fan ratio > 3, one end use > 60 % of margin) now stop any navigator 'complies' result from being accepted on its own (D-CX-25).
The run 1 diagnosis found an unserved plantroom treated as conditioned (151 unmet heating hours) and a non-WF1 water-cooled chiller; run 2 corrected both (plantroom unoccupied, D-CX-27; code-minimum benchmark heat pump, D-CX-26).
The earlier finding 'Title 24 2025 module not installed' was withdrawn: the module is built into VE 2026 (D-CX-19).
Offline pre-check: failed_precheck on fenestration solar heat gain, lighting power (9,864 W vs 5,480 W allowed) and missing PV (≥ 21.076 kWdc) and battery (≥ 37.522 kWh / 9.381 kW).
Native and Hexanta design loads agree within 7.5–8.5 % (heating ratio 0.925, cooling 1.085); these are agreement checks, not validation.

Conclusions

Hexanta drove the complete native Title 24 2025 performance workflow in IESVE 2026 end to end, twice, on a synthetic building at a hypothetical San Francisco site.
Both software 'complies' results were NOT ACCEPTED on engineering review: 94.5 % of the run 2 margin comes from Standard-design indoor fan energy, about 3 % without it. No Title 24 compliance, pass or certification is claimed.
Automated plausibility triggers now stop a navigator 'complies' result from being accepted on its own; the official compliance report (PRF-01), PV/SARA and the ASHRAE 90.1 PRM were not completed before the IESVE trial licence expired.

Limitations

The building is synthetic (WF1 London Run 4 relocated) at a hypothetical site; permit date assumed 2026-11-02.
HP-01 has no certified ratings; the proposed plant is a code-minimum benchmark; heating heat pumps autosized (oversized vs room heating 10.6 kW).
Glazing data are European (EN) values, not certified US ratings; DHW design unresolved; air barrier, controls, commissioning and lighting controls not assessed.
PV/SARA, PRF-01 and the ASHRAE PRM were not completed; the IESVE trial licence expired 2026-10-25 and no native run was attempted for this pack.
Standard design fan energy (75–81 MWh) remains unexplained; Standard unmet heating hours read 21 (Results Summary) and 24 (plausibility check) without explanation.
The offline energy model is quasi-steady (no thermal mass; fans at code limits as targets; pumps and DHW unresolved; annual-average carbon factor); all offline energy figures are PRELIMINARY.
Title 24 / SF values in the engine are transcribed and unverified; licensed ASHRAE tables are not held; the CZ2022 weather set is named but not shipped (licence not stated).
The offline study r4 predates the native runs; its text does not yet reflect them.

What this case study does not claim

No Title 24 compliance, pass or certification: the software 'DOES comply' statements were NOT ACCEPTED (D-CX-24, D-CX-28) and no PRF-01 exists.
No '59.95 %' or '64.82 %' (or any) better-than-code margin: 94.5 % of the run 2 margin is Standard fan energy; about 3 % without it.
No ASHRAE 90.1 PRM / PCI result, no LEED v5 points or rating.
No San Francisco all-electric or energy-budget compliance (both blocked).
Not a verified, validated or engineer-approved design; inputs are synthetic and provisional; the proposed plant is a benchmark, not HP-01.
Not a real San Francisco project or site (synthetic WF1 London building at a hypothetical site, provisional ZIP).
No native PV simulation or solar-access (SARA) assessment; offline PV yields are PRELIMINARY.
The native battery step is not part of any compliance result (Results Summary shows battery 0).
The offline options (EUI 104.4 → 89.0 kWh/m²·yr, grid import and carbon reductions) are PRELIMINARY estimates, not simulations or compliance results.
Hexanta is not CEC-approved compliance software and does not replace it; native/offline comparisons are agreement checks only.
No cost savings, payback or tariff-based figures (LSC $/ft²·yr is a Title 24 metric, not a cost).
No partnership or endorsement by any equipment manufacturer; third-party battery data are public datasheet values.
No current IESVE availability or commercial licence: the work used a trial licence that expired 2026-10-25.
Compliance results are not computed live in the Hexanta application; this is a read-only case study of preserved evidence.

Sanitised derivative of preserved evidence (compliance-* evidence folders, branch feat/compliance-engine). Nothing was re-simulated for this pack; IESVE was not started. Screenshots are cropped and reviewed; plots and the report contain only values read from the evidence. Not a compliance document. · Pack sf-office-compliance-r2 (built 2026-10-25); every file is checked against its SHA-256 before it is shown.