Solar Revitalizer™ | Sequential PV testing study
Nonconfidential study brief | Proposed study / Protocol and access planning
Research plan · 2026

Research question
Can a PV-specific sequential testing policy reduce complete assessment cost across unfamiliar retired crystalline-silicon module lots, at matched routing-error and decision-coverage limits, while preserving required safety checks and outperforming efficient fixed testing and established adaptive methods?

Intended users
PV recyclers, decommissioning firms and repowering operators handling retired crystalline-silicon modules.

Proposed method
Investigate whether capture conditions and cross-modal physical consistency improve optional test, repeat, stop or referral decisions. Qualified specialists define mandatory safety/qualification and independent condition/function references. Compare actual operator practice, a cost-tuned fixed workflow, an established adaptive method and the PV-specific candidate with equivalent eligible measurements. Separate development, calibration and untouched source lots; freeze policies and thresholds. Compare complete cost at matched routing-error and automatic-decision coverage limits, with uncertainty and capture-quality ablation. Replayed savings require prospective workflow timing.

Proposed scientific output
A comparative account of when the candidate policy improves cost, routing error and decision coverage across held-out source lots, together with the conditions where efficient fixed or established adaptive methods match or outperform it.

First readiness outputs
- A documented module-access plan, qualified reference protocol and mandatory safety/qualification requirements.
- A repeatable acquisition and capture-quality protocol, with specialist-defined physical relationships and optional-test actions.
- A frozen comparison plan covering source-lot grouping, route errors, coverage, expert review, uncertainty and capture-quality ablation.
- Supplier-costed work packages, prospective timing and full-cost accounting, with responsibilities and access terms.

Decision enabled
Whether the candidate earns an advantage over simpler and established methods, what fails on unfamiliar lots, and whether a bounded physical validation or partner pilot is justified.

Useful contributions
Applied engineering, PV testing/facility access, modules with documented provenance, operator insight, research sponsorship and useful resources or introductions.

Scope and costing
Initial physical work concerns assessment and routing for retired crystalline-silicon modules. Agree the mechanism, population, access, specialist responsibilities and schedule; build costs from supplier estimates. Environmental effects require a separate lifecycle comparison.

First step
A short nonconfidential description of an intake problem, research question or relevant capability, followed by a 20–30-minute scoping conversation if mutually useful.

Proposed work packages
Module and reference access
Output: A defined cohort, provenance and permissions record, qualified reference protocol and access plan.
Dependencies: Module availability, handling requirements, laboratory capability, lead times and supplier quotes.
Gate: The cohort and independent reference assessments are feasible and sufficiently defined.

Capture and repeatability
Output: Paired measurement records and controlled repeat captures that separate acquisition quality from module-condition evidence.
Dependencies: Qualified testing support, permitted capture conditions, instruments, repeatability requirements and priced acquisition time.
Gate: The measurements and reference findings can support the intended comparison.

Policy and held-out comparison
Output: Frozen operator, fixed, established-adaptive and candidate comparisons, mechanism ablations and cost/error/coverage results.
Dependencies: Permissioned records, independent adjudication, specialist implementation and an agreed evaluation design.
Gate: Advance only if the candidate earns a useful advantage; document where simpler methods win.

Workflow and value validation
Output: Prospective timing, complete operator-cost comparison and a separately defined environmental assessment boundary.
Dependencies: Operator participation, throughput assumptions, downstream acceptance, realized outcomes or identified estimates, and supplier costs.
Gate: A bounded next phase is justified by measured workflow evidence and realistic adoption conditions.

Begin with nonconfidential information. Supporting technical materials may be discussed on request, subject to availability, permissions and an agreed scope and appropriate confidentiality and ownership terms.

Contact: Frank Jackson / SBX Research & Collaboration
Frank@shutterbugexchange.com