Case Studies (Reference Archetypes)
BDA Genesis is designed for diagnostic ambiguity — where conclusions can look plausible, while the inference path is difficult to reconstruct.
These archetypes are not meant to ‘prove a number’, but to show whether reasoning can be made explicit, reviewable and auditable.
Case 1: Moisture vs. escape of water
Why it matters
Cause classification drives coverage interpretation, remediation scope, recourse strategy and dispute dynamics.
Typical friction points
- inconsistent terminology across suppliers and jurisdictions
- implicit assumptions (‘must be condensation’) without explicit tests
- missing bridge between observations and decision-relevant signals
What BDA Genesis adds
- explicit hypothesis structure (what is assumed, what is tested, what remains uncertain)
- traceable mapping from observations to decision-relevant signals
- audit-ready documentation that allows independent review
Case 2: Condensation / thermal bridges and remediation proposals
Why it matters
Physics, usage patterns and remediation proposals often collide. Disputes arise less from missing expertise than from missing traceability.
Typical friction points
- selective evidence (photos without climate context, or vice versa)
- remediation proposals not grounded in a falsifiable reasoning chain
- unclear differentiation between building physics and user behavior narratives
What BDA Genesis adds
- deterministic structure of inference (assumptions, thresholds, checks)
- separation of observation, interpretation and recommendation
- explicit uncertainty handling and review prompts
Next step: Proof of Concept
Case archetypes become operationally relevant only when tested on real files with measurable outcomes.
Boundary
Important: BDA Genesis does not automate coverage, liability or claims decisions.