A supplied proposal
Evaluate the declared equipment arrangement, operating profiles, period and protected obligations against the applicable evidence.
Comparisons and portfolio review
Compare proposals on a clear basis.
Review compatible site proposals and the periods you supply. Keep their assumptions, constraints and evidence gaps visible before deciding which case needs further work.
Keep the basis of comparison visible.
Owners, operators, developers and diligence teams can review the same evidence. Comparisons keep compatible methods, boundaries and decision criteria together; unlike cases are not forced into one ranking.
Compatible cases
Compare compatible supplied cases and evaluation periods, show which assumptions changed and preserve ties. The reviewer still decides what to pursue.
A reviewable summary
Bring the included site findings, constraints, missing evidence and next review actions together. A summary does not add incompatible capacity figures into one total.
Ask what could change the conclusion.
A controlled what-if evaluates declared changes to assumptions while preserving the original observations. Each supplied period is assessed in full; Headroom does not search for an operating window, invent a plan or choose an optimal dispatch.
Review priorities identify which records, limits or assumptions need attention next. They are not forecasts of returns, investment recommendations or proof of flexibility.
Site reports, comparison records, portfolio summaries and replayable evidence support scrutiny of the agreed assessment.
Evaluate the workflow before extending the relationship.
Start with a First Site Evaluation. Subsequent comparison and portfolio work can be scoped around compatible questions and authorized records.
Ongoing quarterly reporting is available by annual agreement. No live integration, unattended self-service, customer deployment or production-readiness claim is made.
One site. One question. An agreed period.
First Site Evaluation
A scoped assessment using Headroom software for one site and one decision. Start with a short fit discussion; suitable records and a supported question are required. Agree scope, written authorization and data handling before sharing records.
Written finding within five business days after scope is agreed and the required records are confirmed.
Request a First Site Evaluation
Review the records checklist and who develops Headroom. No sensitive records are needed for the initial inquiry.
Read-only and export-based. A finding tests a supplied proposal over a stated period. No maximum-MW, safe shorter duration, repeat-cycle, firm-capacity or revenue guarantee is implied. Our capacity examples use synthetic inputs. Separate benchmarks check the processing of published Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) measurements from the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR), formerly the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), including mapping, accounting and reported thermal arithmetic. These checks do not establish available site capacity. Customer validation and external engineering review remain outstanding. Methods and verification