Answer
Review shading education material against the actual project record before sending it to a customer. Label each metric and its comparison baseline, show the analyzed array and obstruction inputs, distinguish resource from electrical production, and identify unresolved site facts. Attach the current model revision and a named next action so the explanation supports a reviewable decision.
Review the explanation as a project deliverable
Use this checklist when approving a presentation, proposal appendix or follow-up email about shading. It is a content-review tool for solar sales and design teams. For the customer conversation itself, see explaining shading losses to homeowners; for interpreting the numbers, use the shade-report reading guide.
The useful owner framework remains simple: identify the obstruction, state the source and time period, explain the limits, and show what a changed assumption could change. The following checks turn that framework into an artifact another team member can review.
| Check | Pass condition | Return for correction when… |
|---|---|---|
| Project identity | Address, array area and design revision match the proposal | The screenshot or report describes a previous layout |
| Evidence | Source date and measured versus assumed inputs are labeled | An imagery model is called a completed site survey |
| Metric | Name, unit and comparison baseline are stated | A resource percentage is called system efficiency |
| Time scope | The chart or image identifies the represented period | One selected shadow is presented as an annual result |
| Uncertainty | Material unknowns and their resolution are visible | A favorable tree or obstacle assumption is undisclosed |
| Decision | The next action has an owner | The reader receives a warning with no way to resolve it |
Label numbers before interpreting them
Aurora’s shade-report documentation distinguishes Solar Access, Tilt and Orientation Factor and Total Solar Resource Fraction. These compare incident solar resource against different reference conditions. They should not be relabeled as module conversion efficiency or promised AC output.
Check the definitions supplied by the actual report provider. The HelioScope TSRF explanation illustrates how shaded resource, the actual orientation and an ideal reference relate. A customer does not need the full derivation on every slide, but the baseline needs to remain visible.
Avoid a second generic shading deduction when the production model already includes the effect. Ask the designer which result is being quoted and which losses are included before editing the sales explanation.
Keep the image and its limits together
Annotate the proposed array and the material obstacles. Identify whether the geometry comes from imagery, a site measurement or an assumption. Keep the source date next to the image so a later reviewer can identify a stale input.
A seasonal example should carry a date and time. A monthly chart should identify the metric and units. Neither should imply that all hours or seasons have the same shading. If vegetation or a proposed neighboring structure is uncertain, distinguish the existing modeled condition from any alternative scenario.
An annotated picture is useful because the customer can correct it: a tree may already be removed, an extension may be planned, or a rooftop object may be missing. Route that information back to the design record before changing the estimate.
Give uncertainty an actionable next step
Hypothetical review example: a presentation shows a tree modeled at 8 m, but no measurement is recorded. The reviewer marks the height as an assumption, assigns site verification to the survey lead, and holds the final production statement until the designer evaluates the verified geometry. The sales team can explain the preliminary layout without representing the unknown dimension as a surveyed fact.
Do not invent a percentage uncertainty range. If the designer compares alternative geometries, explain the assumptions and identify which inputs remained unchanged. A pair of scenarios is not automatically a statistical confidence interval.
Release one consistent version
Before approval, compare the customer material with the current model and proposal. Resolve mismatches in panel count, array position, assumptions and production totals. Save the approved version and the reviewer’s open items together.
Use the shading design workflow to decide when a changed input needs another review. Structural, electrical and utility questions still belong with the relevant qualified reviewer.
For software evaluation, ask a shadow-analysis demonstration to show the evidence and outputs your team needs for this checklist. Verify the available workflow before promising a particular report or automatic synchronization to customers.
Questions about reviewing shading material
Can a solar shading model guarantee annual production?
No. A model is an estimate based on its stated data, method, weather assumptions, layout, and loss inputs. Site conditions and later design changes can alter it.
What should an installer show a customer about shading?
Show the array area, identified obstructions, data date, analysis scope, material uncertainties, and the next verification step.
When should a shading estimate be updated?
Update it when the roof layout, obstruction record, site information, or assumptions affecting the model change.
Sources
Primary research and reference material used for this desk-research article.
Where this fits
This article is part of SurgePV's Solar Design hub, which works through the topic from first principles to the decisions a project team actually has to make.
