Illustrative examples / not specific assets
Public Duty Factsheet role archetypes
Three examples of how the same asset can appear differently through accepted actions, metering, declared capability, registry, and identity lenses.
Illustrative only. Approximate values below demonstrate the report structure. They are not named-asset observations and do not assess consistency, condition, availability, risk, fault, fatigue, credit, underwriting, or causality.
Example AHigh-cadence / low-volume
Frequent instructions with small energy per action: a public BM coordination footprint.
- BM events/day
- ~105
- Switches/day
- ~21
- Longest gap
- ~9 h
- Peer cadence
- ~98th percentile
- MEL
- ~50 MW export
- B1610
- Bidirectional trace
- Window
- Rolling 30d
Example BLow-visible BM / metered trace
Little or no BM footprint while a lagged public metered trace remains present.
- BM events/day
- 0
- Quiet gap
- Full window
- MEL
- Declares zero
- B1610
- ~20 MWh/day
- Registry
- Operational
- Identity
- Weak fuzzy match
- Maturity
- Mixed / T+7
Example CRegistry lag / identity ambiguity
A registry label that does not cleanly resolve against the observed public footprint.
- BM events/day
- Low / intermittent
- Switches/day
- Few
- MEL
- Partial
- B1610
- Intermittent
- Registry
- Planning granted
- Identity
- Weak fuzzy match
- Maturity
- Registry stale
Why multiple lenses
One trace should not complete the story
| Initial lens | Possible misread | Correcting lens |
|---|
| No BOALF acceptance | The asset was physically inactive. | B1610 can show a metered trace outside visible BM participation. |
| MEL declared zero | The asset could not physically operate. | Metering can distinguish declaration from observed physical activity. |
| Registry says under construction | The site had no public operational footprint. | Metering and accepted actions can expose registry lag or identity ambiguity. |