The same digits changed meaning between two supplier packages, and the later package stamped the new meaning as finally confirmed by the user. Nothing in the review rejects 155 kW. What it rejects is the authority the phrase beside the figure claims. The earlier package treated 155 kW as a whole-cabinet peak and took 90 per cent of it; the revised package writes 155 kW per branch as a sustained liquid heat load and marks it, in several places, as finally confirmed by the user [TARGET]. The reviewing session holds no record of that confirmation, and the load envelope moves from 697.5 to 775 kW underneath the phrase.
Supplier Confirmation Is Not Owner Approval
The review states the inheritance rule directly: a user confirmation recorded in a supplier exchange does not automatically become owner approval on this project. It applies the same rule to two other figures carried the same way, the cabinet count and the raised operating flow, and declines to treat any of the three as an accepted project input. The point is not that the supplier misrepresented anything, and the review is careful to say so. It is that the phrase moves a decision across an organisational boundary without leaving a record on the receiving side, and once it has crossed, the figure reads downstream as settled.
The shared project memory governs this file's fixed facts: anything that changes one of them enters a change-candidate list and is confirmed by the overall controller before the body text is altered. Whether the cabinet liquid heat load is one of those facts is not stated there; the comparison is an analogy. If the analogy holds, the phrase in the supplier document bypasses that instrument.
Whether 775 kW Is Required Decides Which Margin Governs
The consequence is arithmetic and it is already computed. Adding the assumed secondary pump heat of 11.905 kW gives 786.905 kW at the new envelope against 709.405 kW at the old one; a 900 kW exchanger then holds 14.372 per cent over the peak and 26.867 per cent over the normal point [MODELED]. A 20 per cent requirement at the peak would need 944.286 kW. The supplier disclosed the fall in margin itself, and the review records that disclosure as correct conduct while refusing the conclusion in both directions: it does not follow that every operating case meets 20 per cent, and it does not follow that 900 kW is short of a 775 kW load.
So the phrase settles a margin question by settling a scope question first. If 775 kW is a required condition, the peak margin governs and the normal point stops being the design case. If 775 kW is a supplier design envelope carried in addition, the normal point governs and the peak margin is a spare figure. The required response splits exactly there: keep the envelope as an additional supplier case if that is what it is, withdraw the customer-confirmed wording that has no traceable record, and separate the electrical draw, the liquid heat, the duration, the capture ratio and the customer requirement into five statements instead of one.
The Defect Is a Missing Owner Record, Not Equipment Fault
The paper trail is what the assessment could reach, and the defect it reports is a gap in that trail rather than a fault in the equipment. It ran no physical test, executed no supplier code, observed no site control and verified no certificate as currently in force. Its own scope note grades factual content as document content and known project constraints, grades conditional figures as study material, and holds anything whose physical applicability is unproven. It also declines to reopen the electrical basis or the efficiency target as supplier defects, and declines to treat a de-identified address as a project identity error. A confirmation record in the owner's files would close this finding; an equipment test would not reach it.
Nine of the twenty findings are graded priority blockers, and this is one that stayed open through the revision in which the owner boundary changed and two neighbouring items were downgraded from that grade. Surviving that revision is itself evidence about the kind of defect it is: the two items that moved did so because a technical premise changed, and this one could not move because nothing technical about it is in dispute. Twenty-one supplement tasks are mapped item by item to a status register, and the review records that no single complete task can be closed unconditionally on the present package.
Limits and open items
Confirmed: a user confirmation recorded in a supplier exchange does not automatically become owner approval on this project; the reviewing session holds no corresponding confirmation record. [FACT]
Supplier envelopes, not a freeze: 155 kW as peak taken at 90 per cent, then as sustained per-branch liquid heat; 697.5 kW moving to 775 kW. [TARGET]
Independent arithmetic on those envelopes: 11.905 kW assumed pump heat; 786.905 kW against 709.405 kW; 14.372 per cent and 26.867 per cent on a 900 kW exchanger; 944.286 kW if 20 per cent is required at the peak. [MODELED]
Open: a one-line owner record of which of the two 155 kW is; the five statements separated; any of the twenty-one supplement tasks closed unconditionally. [HOLD]
Nothing here has been reviewed or sealed by an Engineer of Record. Nothing describes how any installed system behaved.
Write Which 155 kW in the Supplement Register
The party that can close this one is the owner's technical lead, and the instrument is a single line in that supplement register saying which of the two 155 kW is, entered before the technical agreement is frozen rather than after it. The review's own acceptance order puts the source and authority of the 155 kW figure in the first tier, ahead of the test programme that would otherwise be asked to settle it.
© 2026 K&K Data Service Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or republication is permitted only with clear attribution to K&K Data Service Inc. and a working hyperlink to the canonical URL of this article. Excerpts must preserve the technical context, maturity labels, assumptions, and limitations. No excerpt may imply project approval, field validation, certification, or endorsement that the original article does not state.
Source: K&K Data Service Inc., “User-Confirmed 155 kW Cabinet Load Has No Owner Approval Record,” https://www.kkdatasvc.com/lab/errata-and-open-questions/user-confirmed-155-kw-with-no-owner-record/.
Discuss This Constraint. If your project record shows a different result, or the same failure domain under another name, we want to see it. Email inquiry@kkdatasvc.com or use the contact page.