Diagnose & route

Which tests change the next module decision?

Investigate optional test selection across unfamiliar module lots, comparing complete cost, routing errors and expert-review needs.

Feasibility & analytical development
  1. 01Record identity and capture conditions
  2. 02Apply required checks and constraints
  3. 03Choose an optional test, repeat or stop
  4. 04Recommend a route or specialist review

The practical question

An ambiguous result can reflect module damage, an unfamiliar module family or an unreliable capture. The next decision is whether to acquire another optional measurement, repeat a capture, stop testing or ask a specialist.

The research approach

The proposed study investigates whether capture conditions and cross-modal physical consistency can improve sequential test selection across unfamiliar retired crystalline-silicon module lots. A PV-specific policy would weigh another optional test or repeat capture against its expected decision benefit and full cost, then stop with an eligible route recommendation or refer the case. PV and ML specialists will define the admissible actions and physical relationships. Required safety and qualification procedures remain outside the policy’s control; independent reference findings establish condition, function and eligibility separately from its recommendations.

See how the proposed study would be validated
Proposed experimental design / Module-intake study

Test the decision against independent findings.

The proposed study compares what the candidate policy recommends with qualified reference assessments, then asks what errors, expert work and costs remain.

01 / Cohort & access

Representative modules, documented provenance.

Agree the operating context, handling/access protocol, module identity and source-lot records.

02 / Partition before fitting

Keep related modules and observations together.

Separate development/calibration groups from held-out evaluation groups before preprocessing, fitting and calibration.

Candidate path

Evidence → optional test or stop → update / refer

Record identity, physical observations and capture-quality context. Investigate how measurement reliability and unfamiliar source lots affect the choice to acquire an optional test, repeat a capture, stop or refer. Freeze the policy before held-out evaluation.

Independent reference path

Qualified tests → adjudication → findings

Establish condition/function findings and an eligibility rubric. Mask adjudicators to model recommendations where practicable; preserve disputed or unresolved cases.

03 / Held-out comparison

Operator rules, efficient fixed testing and established adaptive methods.

Give each method the same eligible measurements and information. Compare complete costs at matched routing-error and decision-coverage limits. Keep mandatory safety checks, independent reference findings and downstream eligibility separate from the optional-acquisition policy.

Action errorsRoute-specific errors against the agreed reference protocol.
Review burdenShare referred (%) and expert time per incoming module.
Complete costsCapture, handling, qualification, review, logistics and error consequences in USD/incoming module.
04 / Decide

Retain a measurement, revise the policy, stop a pathway or scope the next pilot.

Design basis: proposed diagnostic study (S06), PV qualification context (P01/P13), selective prediction (P14), commercial integrated testing (P19) and active feature acquisition (P20). Replayed savings require prospective timing before they establish operating savings.

Who would use it

For recyclers, decommissioning firms and repowering operators: evidence about when extra testing earns its cost, when it can stop and when specialist assessment is necessary.

Research to date

Completed Montclair circular-PV feasibility, data exploration and customer discovery established the research foundation. The next physical study is in protocol and access planning. Integrated PV inspection and adaptive feature acquisition already exist; the candidate contribution is a PV-specific method whose advantage under unfamiliar source lots must be tested.

The next validation gate

Agree module access and an independent reference protocol, masking assessors to policy recommendations where practicable. Compare actual operator practice, a cost-tuned fixed workflow, an established adaptive method and the candidate under equivalent measurement access. Keep each module and source lot in one partition; freeze policies, calibration and thresholds before final evaluation. Compare route errors and complete costs at matched decision coverage, with uncertainty intervals. Test capture-quality ablation and prospective workflow timing. Retain simpler methods if they match the candidate or new-lot performance fails.

Synthetic routing examples

Follow a record to its next question.

Compare three fictional module records to see how the available evidence changes the next step. These examples illustrate proposed decision rules.

Choose an example record

Record
Assumed observations
Why this route
Next gate

Help test the intake decision.

Bring PV diagnostics, sequential decision methods, module access or operator insight to a bounded protocol and costed comparison.

Explore collaboration