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

ENERGY & BUILDING-CODE COMPLIANCE · CASE STUDY

San Francisco Office Energy & Compliance — Visualisations

NOT COMPLIANT / NOT ACCEPTED — native Title 24 runs rejected; official report not generated; ASHRAE PRM blocked

Visualisations

**Run 2 site electricity by end use: Standard vs Proposed (NOT ACCEPTED)**Hexanta plot of the values in the native Title 24 2025 Results Summary, run 2. Standard indoor fans 75.12 MWh vs 7.27 MWh proposed dominate the difference; the software result was NOT ACCEPTED.Hexanta plot of evidence values · source: compliance-NATIVE-T24-RUN2-20261025/outputs/reports (Results Summary, values only)

**Run 2 compliance margin decomposition: 94.5 % from Standard fan energy**Hexanta plot of the LSC margin by end use (run 2): 44.53 of 47.11 $/ft²·yr comes from indoor fans; without it the margin would be about 3 %. Basis of rejection D-CX-28.Hexanta plot of evidence values · source: compliance-NATIVE-T24-RUN2-20261025/outputs/reports (Results Summary, values only); compliance-NATIVE-T24-RUN2-20261025/outputs/plausibility.txt

**Offline design options O0–O3: EUI and grid import (PRELIMINARY)**Hexanta plot of the offline study r4 design options. PRELIMINARY quasi-steady estimate; not a simulation or compliance result.Hexanta plot of evidence values · source: compliance-WF1-SF-STUDY-20261024-r4/REPORT.md §7

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.