12 Checkpoints to Review in PVSyst Reports ｜ How to Read Them

In practical work on solar power system design and generation forecasting, there are many situations where knowing how to read the output report is more important than running the simulation itself. Even if you can set the input conditions and produce results, if you cannot correctly interpret those results, design decisions, comparative evaluations, and explanations to internal and external stakeholders will remain vague. In particular, for practitioners searching for "how to read PVSyst", it can be unclear in what order to check the numbers and loss items listed in the report, the monthly results, and the assumptions.

PVSyst reports are not merely documents that show annual energy yield. They are materials that organize the overall design state of a project, including the site’s meteorological conditions, orientation and tilt, system configuration, breakdown of losses, the conversion from DC to AC, and month-by-month variations. In other words, reading the report is not about looking at each individual number, but about interpreting the project’s generation structure step by step. If you get this wrong, you may focus only on items with large numbers and lose sight of the essence, or conversely overlook important anomalies.

A way of reading that is truly useful in practice is not to scan a report from top to bottom. It's a way of reading that has an order for what to check first and what to dig into later. For example, instead of stopping after looking only at the final annual energy production, you first check whether the underlying site conditions and installation conditions are reasonable, then confirm the equipment configuration, read the loss diagram and the breakdown of losses, and finally look at the monthly results and the differences between the DC and AC sides. Simply having this order changes how the report appears considerably.

This article organizes and explains twelve key points to keep in mind when reviewing PVSyst reports. Rather than merely introducing items, it covers where to look, why to look there, what is easily misunderstood, and how to use the information in practice. The aim is to provide guidance that goes beyond simply staring at the resulting numbers and to help you read reports in a way that supports design, comparison, explanation, and reassessment.

Table of Contents

• Prerequisites for reviewing a report

• Check Point 1｜Whether the target project and calculation conditions match the intended specifications

• Check Point 2｜Whether the site and meteorological condition assumptions are reasonable

• Check Point 3｜Whether azimuth, tilt, and installation conditions are correctly reflected in the report

• Check Point 4｜Whether equipment capacity and configuration are consistent

• Check Point 5｜Confirm annual energy generation as the entry point to the results

• Check Point 6｜View specific yield and PR simultaneously

• Check Point 7｜Read the loss diagram as a flow

• Check Point 8｜Do not misjudge the placement or role of losses caused by shading

• Check Point 9｜Do not underestimate temperature-related losses

• Check Point 10｜Check monthly results for any unnatural bias

• Check Point 11｜Infer downstream losses from the difference between DC and AC sides

• Check Point 12｜Trace the report’s figures back to the assumptions and verify them

• Common misinterpretations beginners are prone to when reviewing reports

• How to differentiate the use of reports in practice

• The accuracy of site conditions influences how easily the report can be interpreted

• Summary

Prerequisites for Reviewing a Report

Before reading a PVSyst report, there is a premise you should first keep in mind. That is, the report is not a definitive answer but a set of decision-making materials organized based on the input conditions. When the numbers line up neatly and the loss diagram and monthly results are summarized, it’s easy to treat them themselves as the correct solution. In reality, however, the report is merely one predicted outcome that reflects assumptions such as site conditions, installation conditions, equipment conditions, and loss conditions. For that reason, when reading the report you need to be as aware of the assumptions under which the figures were produced as you are of the figures themselves.

Reports also have the characteristic that the numbers that look clear as results and the numbers that are important in practice do not necessarily match. Annual generation and PR are easy to understand and convenient for explanations, but by themselves they do not reveal causes or structure. On the other hand, shading losses, temperature losses, monthly biases, differences between the DC side and the AC side, and so on may appear unremarkable, yet they are extremely important for design decisions. In other words, when reading a report, it is important not to chase only the eye-catching figures but to pursue the underlying structure.

Furthermore, in practice a report does not serve a single role. For design personnel it is a document to verify the validity of a design, and for sales personnel and managers it is a document to understand the project's overview. For clients it becomes explanatory material, and during reexamination it becomes material for locating problem areas. Precisely because the uses differ in this way, there is value in clarifying how to read each item. The twelve checkpoints covered in this article are the basic viewpoints that practitioners should grasp first, regardless of those differences in use.

Checkpoint 1 | Are the target project and calculation conditions as intended?

What you should check first is whether the project covered by the report and the calculation conditions are actually what was intended. This may seem elementary at first glance, but it is extremely important in practice. If, before you start reading the report, it is unclear whether the report you have is a comparative scenario, the latest set of conditions, a provisional version, or whether it includes shading conditions, then no matter how closely you read it afterward you will make the wrong judgement.

At the outset, it is important to confirm that the project name, calculation date, assumed installation conditions, and differences between cases are clearly specified. For example, when comparing multiple proposals, one case may involve a change in tilt while the other may involve a change in equipment capacity. Alternatively, the reports may differ only in whether shading conditions are present. If you compare only the annual power generation without recognizing these differences, you will be comparing results that reflect different conditions rather than evaluating the designs.

In practice, when people are in a hurry and only look at the numbers, they tend to skip this check. However, those who are good at reading reports first solidify the assumptions. If it’s clear which project, under which conditions, and which case is being examined, the meaning of the subsequent figures becomes easier to interpret. Conversely, if this is ambiguous, you won’t be able to tell what’s causing differences in annual power generation, differences in PR, or differences in losses.

The first step in checking a report is not to read the numbers, but to confirm that you are not misunderstanding the subject and conditions of the report you're about to read. This may seem mundane, but it is a fundamental point that greatly affects the accuracy of your interpretation.

Checkpoint 2｜Are the assumptions about the location and meteorological conditions reasonable?

Next I want to confirm the assumptions about the site and the meteorological conditions. In PVSyst reports it’s easy to focus on results like annual energy production and PR, but what underpins those results are the site’s meteorological conditions. No matter how high the energy production appears, to distinguish whether that is simply due to favorable solar irradiance at the site or the result of design optimizations, you must first grasp the assumed meteorological conditions.

What is important here is to confirm that the assumptions about site names and meteorological data are as intended. In practice, you may use data from nearby sites or standard datasets, but the choice of data changes how the results appear. If site conditions change, the irradiance on the horizontal plane, the temperature conditions, and the basis for the final power output all change. Therefore, before interpreting the results, you need to be aware under which site conditions the calculations were performed.

Also, while meteorological conditions are assumed to be beyond the control of the design, they greatly affect interpretation when making comparisons. Even if a project's annual power generation is high, if the solar irradiance conditions were inherently favorable, it is not correct to take that difference at face value as a reflection of design capability. Conversely, if losses are well controlled in a project despite harsh site conditions, that project may be highly rated from a design standpoint. In other words, reading site conditions is necessary to separate the scope of design responsibility from the scope of natural conditions.

As a basic rule for reading reports, it is important to follow the order of first checking the natural conditions and then examining the design results. Simply clarifying the assumptions about the location and the meteorological conditions can considerably change how annual power generation, specific yield, and PR appear.

Check Point 3｜Are orientation, tilt, and installation conditions correctly reflected in the report?

Once you have confirmed the site conditions, the next thing to check is whether the azimuth, tilt, and installation conditions are correctly reflected in the report. This is the part that converts natural conditions into design conditions. In other words, it is the foundation that determines how the incoming solar radiation at the site is actually received by the actual equipment. If this deviates from the design intent, subsequent interpretations of losses and power generation will also be off.

In practice, even when you believe you have entered the azimuth and tilt, they can end up being calculated with values different from those intended during switching between alternative scenarios or when modifying conditions. Also, if the assumptions about the installation method differ even subtly, that affects how temperature and shading conditions are considered. Therefore, rechecking the azimuth, tilt, and installation conditions shown in the report is not a mere formality but an important task for assessing the validity of the results.

What you should be looking at here is not just whether the numbers match. It is important to also verify, as part of the design intent, whether those conditions are truly appropriate. For example, in practice you need to read the meaning of the conditions: whether the tilt settings are reasonable, whether there is an intention to accept azimuth variation, or whether temperature effects from the installation method are being anticipated. A report is both a record of the inputs and a reflection of the design intent.

What beginners tend to overlook is thinking that orientation and tilt are just settings. In reality, these conditions influence the solar irradiance on the inclined surface, how shadows form, the temperature conditions, and ultimately the final power output. In other words, verifying the installation conditions is also confirming the assumptions needed to interpret the overall results that follow.

Checkpoint 4｜Are the equipment capacity and configuration consistent?

When reading a report, alignment between equipment capacity and configuration is also an important verification point. PVSyst results are not determined solely by irradiance conditions and losses; they can also change significantly depending on what system configuration is assumed. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm that the relationship between module-side capacity and final output, the balance between DC and AC, and the overall configuration are consistent with the design intent.

If you neglect this check, the interpretation of annual power generation and PR becomes ambiguous. For example, one proposal might have a somewhat larger installed capacity, while another might be configured more conservatively. In that case, comparing only the final difference in generated energy will not make clear whether what you really want to compare is the difference in layout or the difference in equipment configuration. In practical comparative evaluations, unless you clearly state what is being changed and what is being held constant, it is difficult to give meaning to differences in the numbers.

In addition, equipment capacity and configuration influence downstream losses and output characteristics. Even if the upstream components receive ample solar irradiance, if the equipment configuration is impractical the output can be reduced downstream. Conversely, even when solar conditions are not particularly favorable, a well-organized equipment configuration can lead to stable results. In other words, verifying equipment capacity and configuration is necessary to understand design characteristics that are not visible from the final power generation alone.

When reviewing reports, installed capacity and system configuration tend to become buried as the background behind the numbers. However, in practice, grasping these aspects makes it easier to read the significance of specific yield, PR, and the difference between the DC side and the AC side. Thinking of the system configuration as an important framework that supports the assumptions of the entire report makes things clearer.

Checkpoint 5｜Confirm annual electricity generation as the starting point for results

Annual power generation is the most eye-catching figure in a report. It is useful for grasping the overall generation scale of a project and is easy to use both in internal preliminary assessments and in explanations to clients, so checking it first is natural. However, the important basic approach is to treat annual power generation not as a conclusion but as an entry point to the results.

Annual generation is a figure that reflects the accumulation of various factors such as solar irradiance conditions, incident light conditions, shading, temperature, array losses, and system losses. For that reason, you cannot determine from this number alone what is performing well and where problems exist. In practice, it is common to evaluate a project based solely on this annual generation, but doing so weakens both the ability to identify areas for improvement and the persuasive power of comparisons.

For example, a project with high annual power generation may simply have had favorable site conditions to begin with. Conversely, even if the annual generation is somewhat low, a project that keeps losses well controlled under harsh conditions may be superior in design. This difference cannot be seen from annual generation alone. That is why, after looking at the annual generation, it is important to then examine why that value was reached by looking at losses and site conditions.

For practical, operational reading, it's reliable to first grasp the scale from the annual energy generation, and then review the specific yield, PR, and the loss structure. Annual energy generation is important, but it's not a number you finish with — it's the number you start from. Simply being aware of this makes your use of the report much more practical.

Check Point 6 | View Specific Yield and PR Simultaneously

Next after annual generation to look at are specific yield and PR. Both of these are easy to use as summary figures and are often referenced in practice. However, they do not mean the same thing. Specific yield is a perspective for normalizing generation per unit of installed capacity, while PR is a perspective that summarizes the overall performance of the system. Viewing both at the same time makes it easier to grasp the overall picture of a report.

Looking at specific yield evens out differences in system size, making it easier to compare projects. Annual generation alone tends to make larger projects look advantageous, but specific yield shows how much is generated per unit of capacity. PR, on the other hand, is useful for getting a sense of how well the system is performing under the given conditions. In other words, it’s easier to understand if you think of specific yield as standardizing the view of energy production, while PR is a figure for checking the system’s overall performance.

However, you should not look at these two metrics on their own. It is dangerous to immediately conclude a project is good just because its specific yield is high, or to assume there is no problem just because its PR is high. Chasing numbers without examining site conditions, loss structure, and differences in design conditions yields a superficial evaluation. For example, a high PR may simply reflect favorable irradiance conditions, while a somewhat low specific yield may still indicate the system is performing well under harsh site conditions.

As a way of reading the report, it's natural to grasp the scale from the annual power generation, supplement the overall performance assessment with the specific yield and PR, and then move on to losses and monthly results. If you review it in this order, you won't be swayed by the summary values but will be able to use them as a guide.

Checkpoint 7｜Read loss diagrams as a flow

A distinctive feature of PVSyst reports is the loss diagram. This visualizes how much solar irradiance is reduced at each stage on its way to the final output. Many people focus on the items with large numerical values here, but in practice what is important is to read the loss diagram not as individual items but as a flow.

The point of looking at a loss diagram is not merely to find which loss is the largest. It is to see where, in the progression from incident solar irradiance to received light, to DC output, and to AC output, the energy is being lost. Losses in earlier stages reduce the base for all subsequent stages. Losses in later stages act on the energy that remains up to that point. Therefore, even with similar percentage losses, the practical significance differs between earlier and later stages.

Being able to view it this way makes it easier to organize priorities for improvement. If shading has a large effect in the upstream stage, focusing only on the efficiency of the downstream stage will not lead to fundamental improvement. Conversely, in projects where the upstream stage is in good order, it becomes much more worthwhile to tighten the system losses in the downstream stage. Reading the loss diagram as a flow is important not only for understanding the report, but also for determining which parts of the design should be reviewed.

Loss diagrams are also useful for explaining things to stakeholders. Rather than showing only annual energy production, it is easier to get stakeholders to accept the results if you explain, step by step, how the incoming solar irradiance enters and where and how it is reduced. In practice, it is important not only to be able to understand a loss diagram by looking at it, but also to be able to explain the flow of the loss diagram in words.

Checkpoint 8｜Don't misjudge the significance of losses due to shading

Shading losses are an item you should pay particular attention to in the report. This is because shading is a loss that takes effect upstream of power generation and influences all subsequent outputs. If the impact of shading is large, no matter how good downstream efficiency is, you cannot recover what was lost upstream. Therefore, it is important to correctly understand the positioning of shading losses.

A common practice in the field is to look only at the shading loss figure and judge whether it is large or small. However, shading losses can be difficult to discern from the annual average figure alone. Because they may be concentrated in particular seasons or at particular times of day, they need to be read together with monthly results and installation conditions. If shading losses stand out in a report, you should not simply take that to be a negative factor; you need to consider where and how they are affecting performance.

Shading losses are also strongly linked to site conditions. Surrounding obstructions, elevation differences, layout, and how clearances are taken—the spatial relationships on site directly affect them. Therefore, interpreting shading losses is not just about reading the numbers in a report, but also about considering the accuracy of your understanding of the site conditions. This is the major difference between simple desk calculations and practical judgment.

What beginners should keep in mind when examining shading losses is that shading is not a minor loss that can be fixed later with a few tweaks. Precisely because it is a loss that affects upstream stages, it should be checked as a priority, and, if necessary, you need to go back and reassess the installation and layout conditions.

Checkpoint 9 | Do not underestimate temperature-related losses

Temperature-related losses are another item that must not be overlooked when reviewing reports. In solar power generation, it is intuitive to think that the more sunlight there is, the easier it is to generate electricity, but in reality module output decreases as module temperature rises. Therefore, even if irradiance conditions are good, if temperature losses are large the final energy yield will not increase as much as expected. Overlooking this can lead you to mistakenly attribute sluggish power generation to other causes.

An important point about temperature loss is that it is not determined solely by ambient temperature. Installation method, ventilation conditions, surrounding environment, and other site-specific factors influence it. In other words, temperature loss is a factor that lies between natural conditions and design conditions. In practice, when this loss is large, it should not be dismissed simply as the result of being in a hot region; it needs to be interpreted to include installation methods and layout approach.

Also, temperature losses become more important the better the solar irradiation conditions are. Even if the original irradiance is high, that advantage can be significantly reduced by temperature. Conversely, if temperature losses are properly controlled, the results will be more stable even under the same irradiance conditions. Therefore, when reading a report, it is particularly meaningful to check temperature losses whenever the solar or light-receiving conditions appear favorable.

For practitioners, temperature losses may not have as much visual impact as shading losses. However, in practice they are an important factor that affects annual results and seasonal variation. Like shading, temperature is also an indispensable checkpoint when interpreting the context behind the results.

Checkpoint 10｜Check for any unnatural bias in monthly results

What is easily overlooked when reading reports is the monthly results. Annual values, such as annual generation and PR, are useful as summaries, but you cannot tell how those values are distributed without looking at the monthly results. In practice, reviewing the monthly results reveals issues and characteristics that were not apparent from the annual values alone.

What we want to look at here is not merely which months have more or less. It's important to determine whether those variations appear to be within a natural range or whether there is any unnatural bias. For example, if power generation drops sharply only in winter, you should suspect the relationship between sun angle and obstructions or the effects of orientation and tilt. Conversely, if summer generation does not increase as much as expected given the solar irradiance, temperature-related losses may be having a strong effect.

Monthly results can also be used to verify the validity of the entire report. If you only look at annual values, the results may seem plausible, but when viewed by month, unnatural dips or biases can appear. In such cases, you may need to review the underlying assumptions and input conditions. In other words, monthly results are an important perspective not only for observing seasonality but also for detecting inconsistencies in the overall calculation results.

In practice, monthly results are useful for both client presentations and internal briefings. Showing not only the annual total but also the seasonal trends in power generation allows you to communicate the project's characteristics more concretely. Even when annual generation is the same, differences in monthly stability can significantly change how the project is perceived. That is why, when reviewing reports, it is important to make a habit of always returning to the monthly results after checking the annual figures.

Checkpoint 11｜Read downstream losses from the difference between the DC side and the AC side

In reports, it is also important to examine the difference between the DC side and the AC side. Solar cells generate direct current, but the AC-side output is closer to the final practical evaluation. Between them there are downstream elements such as wiring and conversion, where losses also occur. Therefore, even if the generation or output on the DC side looks good, unless you check how much remains on the AC side, you cannot be said to have adequately interpreted the results.

By looking at this difference, you can see how much the losses in the downstream stage are affecting performance. If the upstream solar irradiance and light-receiving conditions are favorable, and shading losses and temperature losses are not that large, yet the final results do not improve, there may be issues in the downstream stage. Conversely, in projects where downstream losses are well controlled, it is easier to consider the overall outcome cohesive.

Also, the difference between the DC side and the AC side is useful when considering design revision priorities. Even if the natural conditions and layout constraints of the upstream stage are difficult to change, the configuration of the downstream stage is often relatively easy to revise. Therefore, when this difference is large, it is easier to identify it as a potential area for improvement. In practice, attention tends to focus only on the upstream stage, but only when downstream losses are also examined can you say you have fully read the report.

In terms of the order to read them, it is natural to look at the solar irradiation conditions, the incident-light conditions, the losses, and the monthly results, and then finally check the difference between the DC side and the AC side. If you examine them in this order, it becomes easier to understand that this difference is not merely a numerical discrepancy but arises as the result of a particular stage.

Checkpoint 12 | Verify the report's numbers by tracing them back to the assumptions

Finally, the most important thing is to trace the report’s figures back to their assumptions. This is the twelfth point, yet it is actually a mindset that underpins the whole. No matter how carefully you read annual energy production, PR, and loss diagrams, if you don’t check which assumptions produced those numbers, your practical decisions will be risky.

For example, if shading losses are small, you need to consider whether that is truly because the site conditions are good, or because the conditions of obstructions have not been sufficiently reflected. If temperature losses look reasonable, you should also review the assumptions about mounting methods and ventilation conditions. If the monthly results feel off, you may need to question the handling of solar irradiation data and installation conditions. In this way, having the perspective of going back to the underlying assumptions turns the report from a mere results document into a document for verification.

The reason this perspective is important in practical work is that it relates to both accountability and improvement efforts. When explaining things to internal or external audiences using a report, simply presenting numbers is less persuasive unless you can state the assumptions under which those numbers were produced. Also, if a result feels off, having the habit of going back to check the underlying assumptions makes it easier to determine the direction for recalculation or review.

People who are good at checking PVSyst reports don’t jump straight to the numbers themselves; they verify where those numbers come from. This may seem roundabout to beginners, but in practice it is the most reliable way to read a report. Correctly reading a report means not only looking at the results, but going back and forth between the conditions and the results.

Common misreadings beginners are prone to when reviewing reports

There are several misinterpretations that beginners are prone to when reviewing reports. First, a typical one is evaluating a project based solely on the annual electricity generation. Annual electricity generation is an easy-to-understand figure, but unless you examine its components you cannot tell whether differences are due to site conditions, design differences, or losses. This misreading tends to reduce the accuracy of comparative evaluations.

Another common mistake is treating PR as a universal evaluation metric. PR is useful, but it alone does not determine whether one design is better than another. If you judge only by PR without examining site conditions and loss structures, you can be misled by the apparent figures. In practice, PR is a summary value for grasping the overall picture, not a number to draw conclusions from on its own.

Furthermore, a common misunderstanding is to treat all losses as having the same weight. Shadow losses that act in the earlier stages and system losses that act in the later stages affect the overall outcome differently. If you set improvement priorities solely by comparing the magnitude of loss rates, you are likely to take measures that miss the essence of the problem. It is important to look at which stage the loss takes effect.

Another issue is assuming the report is the actual site. A report is only a prediction based on input conditions, and if your grasp of the site conditions is poor, there are limits to how the results can be interpreted. Even if the numbers look neat, you will misread them if the underlying assumptions are off. Beginners are especially likely to treat a report as a finished answer, but in practice it must be handled as a document conditional on its assumptions.

How should reports be used differently in practice?

The PVSyst report, while a single document, fulfills multiple roles in practice. For designers it is a reference to confirm the validity of a design, and for managers and sales staff it is a document for understanding the overall picture of a project. For clients it serves as explanatory material, and during re-evaluation it becomes a resource for locating problem areas. Because the uses differ in this way, it is important to organize which items to read and to what depth.

For example, in internal preliminary comparisons, focusing on annual energy production, specific yield, PR, and the loss structure makes it easier to grasp the overall picture. On the other hand, for detailed design and re-evaluation, it's better to carefully examine shading losses, temperature losses, monthly results, and even the differences between DC and AC. When explaining to customers, rather than simply presenting the results, it's more convincing to clearly communicate the flow from solar irradiance to output and where losses occur.

People who have an organized approach to reading in practice change how they use reports depending on the counterpart and the situation. However, there is a common framework to those variations: a sequence of checks in the order of natural conditions, installation conditions, equipment configuration, annual results, summary values, losses, monthly results, and downstream differences. With this framework, reports can be read to the necessary depth in any situation.

Rather than simply glancing at a report, in practice it is crucial to be aware of why you are reading it and to adjust how you approach it accordingly. For that reason, it is useful to keep the twelve checkpoints organized in this article as your personal default order.

The accuracy of site conditions affects the readability of the report

PVSyst reports are desk-based documents, but their readability is largely determined by how accurately the site conditions are understood. In particular, shading losses, azimuth, tilt, and the position relative to obstacles are areas where the precision of input conditions tends to translate directly into the results. Therefore, if you want to interpret the report correctly, it is important not only to look at the numbers on the screen but also to ensure how accurately the on-site spatial relationships have been captured.

In practice, even when drawings appear acceptable, slight positional shifts or elevation differences on site can affect shading conditions. Such differences are reflected in solar irradiance conditions, shading losses, and month-by-month deviations. In other words, apparent inconsistencies in a report can sometimes arise from the accuracy of the assessment of site conditions. That is why reading the report and on-site verification cannot be separated.

If the on-site positional relationships can be understood with high accuracy, the validity of the input conditions improves and the meaning of the figures in the report becomes easier to interpret. If it becomes easier to verify installation locations, determine clearances from obstacles, ascertain orientation, and share a common on-site understanding among stakeholders, interpretations related to shadows and layout will become more practical. Report readability is not about how easy the numbers are to read, but about the sense that the numbers are connected to the actual site.

In that sense, in practical work where you need to grasp spatial relationships on site with high accuracy, it naturally leads to using LRTK with iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning devices. By making on-site position checks and orientation determination easier to carry out with high accuracy, it becomes easier to organize the assumptions entered into PVSyst and to understand the meaning of the shadow losses and installation conditions reflected in the report. To improve the quality of report review, the perspective of enhancing the accuracy of on-site understanding is also important.

Summary

To read a PVSyst report correctly, it is effective to follow this sequence: check the project and calculation conditions; confirm the site and meteorological assumptions; verify the azimuth, tilt, and installation conditions; review the system configuration and use the annual energy production as the entry point; grasp the overall picture using specific yield and PR; interpret the loss diagram as a flow; examine shading losses and temperature losses carefully; check the monthly results and the DC-AC difference; and finally trace back to the assumptions. Simply following this flow will greatly clarify how the report is interpreted.

The important thing is not to focus only on the prominent numbers, but to read the whole sequence—from environmental conditions to the final output—as a single structure. Doing so improves the accuracy of comparisons, makes explanations to internal and external stakeholders easier to understand, and makes it easier to notice any anomalies in the results. Report review is not merely the act of checking numbers; it is the task of interpreting the state of the design.

And to make that interpretation even more reliable, it is essential to grasp the on-site positional relationships with high accuracy. If you want to establish the assumptions related to shadows, layout, and orientation, it is also effective to consider utilizing an iPhone-mounted high-precision GNSS positioning device (LRTK). By combining the ability to read PVSyst reports with the ability to accurately understand the site, you can more easily arrive at more convincing power generation forecasts and design decisions.