Evidence

Structured findings with limitations preserved.

Evidence Packages organize supported behavioral changes for engineering and maintenance review without asserting a diagnosis.

Full illustrative Evidence Package

Illustrative example. Not customer data.

EP-CHW-017

Pump power and delivered flow relationship weakened under comparable operating conditions.

Illustrative example. Not customer data.

Illustrative only

System: Chilled-water secondary pumping loop.
Behavioral Finding: Pump power increased relative to delivered flow and persisted across comparable operating periods.
Earliest Supported: First sustained during the overnight comparison window.
Operating Context: Comparable load band, same operating mode, similar commanded speed range, and similar distribution pressure target.
Supporting Evidence: Power-flow residual shift, pressure-flow response change, and repeated behavior across illustrative operating windows.
Confidence notes: Persistence: strong. Context match: moderate. Instrument agreement: partial. Explanation certainty: not claimed.
Evidence Limitations: Telemetry cannot distinguish hydraulic restriction from pump-performance degradation.
Recommended Starting Point: Verify valve position, inspect strainer differential pressure, and confirm commanded speed matches actual speed.

Engineering view

Shows relationship shifts, Operating Context, confidence dimensions, and evidence limits so engineering teams can decide what additional checks are justified.

Maintenance view

Summarizes what changed, what to check first, and what telemetry cannot determine yet in language usable for field review.

What it does not claim

The package does not claim root cause certainty, equipment failure, autonomous diagnosis, savings, downtime avoidance, or control-system authority.

Broader illustrative examples

These examples show relationship evidence beyond pump analytics. They do not invent failures or diagnoses.

Cooling tower staging

Finding: Cooling tower staging no longer produced the expected condenser-water temperature response under comparable heat-rejection load.

Limitation: Available telemetry does not establish whether the change came from airflow, water distribution, staging logic, or instrumentation.

Valve response

Finding: Valve command no longer produced the expected downstream temperature response under comparable load.

Limitation: Telemetry does not establish whether the difference came from valve position, flow availability, actuator behavior, or sensor error.

Sensor agreement

Finding: Redundant measurements began to disagree persistently under otherwise comparable conditions.

Limitation: The evidence identifies disagreement but does not establish which instrument is inaccurate.