These are illustrative scenarios, not actual project or supplier data. Inputs and method boundaries govern each result.
From service requirement to comparable cost
The fictional conveyor packet retains the required material, delivered service, operating hours, meter boundary, offer clauses and buyer scope allowances. Its reconciliation demonstrates how those assumptions become the two cost cases below. Buyer execution remains a separate held gate.
Reproduce the physical and scope bridge
Save the packet, the runner and both case input files in one folder. This command checks delivered output, power-to-energy units, retained scope additions and the exact cost-model inputs.
node reproduce_physical.mjs physical-scenario.json proc-duty-equalised.input.json proc-duty-raw-preview.input.json
Illustrative study
A genuinely short service requirement
Determine whether a premium survives a short common service horizon.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Only horizon changes in the paired case; annual costs and asset-life assumptions remain fixed.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
An extended common service requirement
Expose the combined effect of recurring operating cost and an intermediate replacement.
What changes
Limits of the study
- The longer need is an assumption, not a justification manufactured after seeing the ranking.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Efficiency under a low illustrative tariff
Test whether energy saving can recover the acquisition premium under a low price.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Only the electricity price changes; load profile, annual consumption and all other costs remain fixed.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Efficiency under a high illustrative tariff
Test whether the same physical efficiency difference changes the lifecycle leader at a higher price.
What changes
Limits of the study
- The illustrative tariff is not a forecast; fixed annual consumption hides duty-profile interactions.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Interrupted output with no assigned lost contribution
Separate physical downtime from a monetised contribution loss when output is assumed recoverable.
What changes
Limits of the study
- A zero monetised loss is a deliberately restrictive assumption; it excludes recovery costs and service penalties.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Interrupted output with irrecoverable contribution
Evaluate the same downtime schedule when an explicit loss per hour is assumed.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Only assigned loss per hour changes; overlap with other operating costs must be checked outside the simple model.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Replacement falls exactly at the horizon boundary
Inspect the canonical convention that no replacement is purchased exactly when the service requirement ends.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Zero discounting makes timing arithmetic transparent; the study excludes extension beyond its stated service need.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Replacement is required inside the horizon
Show the discrete purchase created by extending the common service horizon past the short asset life.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Only the horizon changes; replacement occurs at unchanged acquisition cost and the replacement asset earns no terminal credit.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
No supported terminal sale proceeds
Compare acquisition premiums when no end-of-horizon sale receipt is assumed.
What changes
Limits of the study
- All operating inputs are equal; terminal credits do not stand in for unmodelled service benefits.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
An explicitly contested terminal credit
Test whether an illustrative transferable terminal value can reverse otherwise equal operating alternatives.
What changes
- Paired study: No supported terminal sale proceeds↗
- Intervention: Only the transferable bid terminal credit changes; no resale probability, actual market price, disposal tax or transfer cost is estimated.
Limits of the study
- Only the transferable bid terminal credit changes; no resale probability, actual market price, disposal tax or transfer cost is estimated.
- Inputs are fictional illustrations. The canonical workbench has uniform annual operating assumptions, equal service scope and no stochastic failure distribution. Non-cost feasibility and procurement law remain outside the ranking.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Timing without a financial discount
Isolate the effect of the common discounting assumption on an initial-price versus recurring-cost tradeoff.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Rates are deliberately illustrative timing scenarios. Operating costs, service scope and service lives are held constant. No financing, liquidity, inflation inconsistency, risk premium calibration or actual cost of capital is estimated.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
A deliberately high timing hurdle
Isolate the effect of the common discounting assumption on an initial-price versus recurring-cost tradeoff.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Rates are deliberately illustrative timing scenarios. Operating costs, service scope and service lives are held constant. No financing, liquidity, inflation inconsistency, risk premium calibration or actual cost of capital is estimated.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
A fictional price concession that leaves the cost disadvantage
Propose a smaller acquisition price while keeping the original service life and operating burdens. Test whether a lower quote actually changes the lifecycle leader.
What changes
- Paired study: An extended common service requirement↗
- Intervention: Only Acquisition-led capex changes from 100 to 90 USDk. The engine also reprices its later same-cost replacement. No scope or operating evidence is improved.
Limits of the study
- The counteroffer is an original fictional proposition, not a received supplier offer. Equal service and every operating premise remain unverified assumptions.
- The engine does not calculate applicable tender permissions, affordability, supplier profitability or feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
A fictional service package that reverses the lifecycle leader
Propose a connected acquisition, life, operating, energy and recovery package under the unchanged common service horizon, then identify the evidence needed to release the revised analytical preference.
What changes
- Paired study: A fictional price concession that leaves the cost disadvantage↗
- Intervention: The same 90 USDk acquisition now assumes ten-year life, 10 USDk annual operating expense, 70 MWh annual electricity and eight interruption hours. All other inputs remain unchanged. This is a package response, not an isolated causal effect.
Limits of the study
- Every proposed performance quantity is fictional and conditional on common-duty, maintenance, service-life and recovery evidence. No guarantee or supplier acceptance is invented.
- The package combines several changes, so its total difference does not measure a separate empirically identified effect for any field.
- A calculated cost lead cannot cure missing mandatory service evidence or authorise an equipment purchase.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Tariff equality: below the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated tariff linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: Efficiency under a low illustrative tariff↗
- Intervention: The varied field is energyPrice. Conventional and Efficient use the same stated electricity tariff; their consumption and all other inputs are retained from the paired study.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Tariff equality: at the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated tariff linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: Efficiency under a low illustrative tariff↗
- Intervention: The varied field is energyPrice. Conventional and Efficient use the same stated electricity tariff; their consumption and all other inputs are retained from the paired study.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Tariff equality: above the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated tariff linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: Efficiency under a low illustrative tariff↗
- Intervention: The varied field is energyPrice. Conventional and Efficient use the same stated electricity tariff; their consumption and all other inputs are retained from the paired study.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Loss equality: below the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated loss linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Loss equality: at the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated loss linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Loss equality: above the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated loss linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Terminal equality: below the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated terminal linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: No supported terminal sale proceeds↗
- Intervention: Only the Transferable bid residual changes. Its terminal residual is received at the stated horizon; the other bid and all other inputs remain unchanged.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Terminal equality: at the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated terminal linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: No supported terminal sale proceeds↗
- Intervention: Only the Transferable bid residual changes. Its terminal residual is received at the stated horizon; the other bid and all other inputs remain unchanged.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Terminal equality: above the analytic boundary
Confirm the stated terminal linear lifecycle equality and the conditional leader on each side with the unchanged workbench.
What changes
- Paired study: No supported terminal sale proceeds↗
- Intervention: Only the Transferable bid residual changes. Its terminal residual is received at the stated horizon; the other bid and all other inputs remain unchanged.
Limits of the study
- The boundary is an author-derived equality for this explicitly fictional fixed service and cost structure, not an empirical forecast, market price or actual acceptance criterion.
- The analytic decimal is converted to a floating-point app input. A tie requires exactly equal computed Number costs. Literal code unit name order is independent of browser language and creates no substantive preferred offer.
- Changing duty, scope, escalation, life, horizon or any other material field requires a new complete comparison.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Fictional conveyor: unequal quoted scope, a failed comparison
Trace the authored physical duty, power-hours conversion and distinct quoted/retained scope into a reproducible common-service cost case.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Every requirement, offer clause, draw, maintenance quantity and allowance is an original fictional assumption. No actual supplier capability or accepted term is claimed.
- The unequal raw-scope case is deliberately inadmissible; its cost leader demonstrates the error of treating different supplies as comparable.
- One-time allowances are base-date acquisition inputs. The ten-year life equals the ten-year horizon, so the app adds no repeated installation allowance through an inside-horizon replacement.
- Buyer installation/interface capability is absent in the current fictional packet. A favourable equalised cost result cannot release this feasibility gate.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Fictional conveyor: common delivered-service perimeter
Trace the authored physical duty, power-hours conversion and distinct quoted/retained scope into a reproducible common-service cost case.
What changes
Limits of the study
- Every requirement, offer clause, draw, maintenance quantity and allowance is an original fictional assumption. No actual supplier capability or accepted term is claimed.
- The unequal raw-scope case is deliberately inadmissible; its cost leader demonstrates the error of treating different supplies as comparable.
- One-time allowances are base-date acquisition inputs. The ten-year life equals the ten-year horizon, so the app adds no repeated installation allowance through an inside-horizon replacement.
- Buyer installation/interface capability is absent in the current fictional packet. A favourable equalised cost result cannot release this feasibility gate.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
A computed cost difference is not a leading-bid tie
Distinguish numerical equality from an absolute near-tie convention in a supported input case.
What changes
- Change: Rescale both acquisition costs together.
- Held constant: One-year service horizon, zero rate and no continuing or terminal cost.
- Interpretation: The first acquisition remains cheaper, even where both fixed decimal displays would otherwise round to zero.
Limits of the study
- These artificial costs isolate a supported numerical boundary and are not commercial quotations.
- Discounted procurement costs retain floating-point precision; an equal computed value is not exact economic or procurement equivalence.
Open this case in the model↗