<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;">What I do certainly remember (and what we hopefully wrote to you at some point and what has been fixed in the mean time?) is that the QA report *did not* correctly report the emissivity values actually used. We hat quite a mixup due to this at the time.</SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><DIV>The QA report reports what is in the databases for entities that</DIV><DIV>matche a surface construction attribute e.g.</DIV><DIV> *the optical property</DIV><DIV> *the thicknesses of each layer</DIV><DIV> *the thermophysical properties from the materials db entry </DIV><DIV> for each layer.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>If someone has manually edited the raw data in the zone constructions</DIV><DIV>file or the optical properties in a zone tmc file that is not reported in the</DIV><DIV>multi-layer constructions used section of the QA report (it is </DIV><DIV>assumed that you knew you hacked the files).</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The section in the QA report begins with the phrase 'Multi-layer constructions used'</DIV><DIV>and perhaps this is not clear enough. Anyone have a suggestion for an alternative</DIV><DIV>phrase?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>In terms of bugs - we have had reports that sometimes the QA report</DIV><DIV>does not contain an entry for the first construction. Other than that</DIV><DIV>if someone can supply us with models/reports where incorrect data</DIV><DIV>was reported that would help us track down glitches.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>-ESRU</DIV></BODY></HTML>