How we review commercial solar proposals
Every review is currently carried out by a human reviewer working through the same structured framework, so the process is consistent and auditable.
The workflow
- You submit your project details and upload the proposals you've received.
- An analyst extracts the relevant data from each proposal into a structured format.
- A qualified technical reviewer checks the extracted data and the reasoning behind it.
- We generate a report and deliver it to you via a secure, tokenised link.
- We ask what you thought was useful, and what wasn't.
What we deliberately don't do
- We don't declare a single "winner" unless a reviewer explicitly chooses to.
- We don't label an installer dishonest, unsafe or untrustworthy — we report what is and isn't stated, and flag what needs clarifying.
- We don't state an independent yield comparison unless we have the site information (location, orientation, tilt, shading) needed to produce one responsibly.
- We don't give tax or legal advice — where those areas are relevant, we say so and point you to get professional advice.
Traffic-light findings
Each area of a proposal is marked as one of three things:
- Clearly stated — the proposal is explicit and nothing further is needed.
- Needs clarification — the proposal is ambiguous or silent on something worth asking about.
- Requires attention — something looks like it could materially affect the numbers or the outcome.
Reviewer sign-off
Every report records who reviewed it, when, and which version it is. If a delivered report is later corrected, we create a new version and record what changed — we never silently edit a report that has already been sent.
Technical review pending: named reviewer credentials will be added here once a qualified technical reviewer has been formally engaged (see our editorial policy).