The performance gap, measured in public data.
Heat pumps in the field run at a median SPF of 2.80, while specialist-designed installations average 3.9. SPF is a heat pump's efficiency measured over a year in a real home, where the certificate's SCOP is the same idea from the test bench. Part of that distance is set at commissioning, the set-up done when a system first goes live, and it is checkable in the first 48 hours.
This proof sits behind HeatAssure™, from Aeterno. The rules the record runs under, including the right of reply and who sees a reading, are published on Trust.
2.80
Median SPF in the BEIS Electrification of Heat Demonstration Project
A strong signal that field performance is far below what well-installed systems can achieve.
3.9
Average SPF across specialist-designed installations tracked by HeatPumpMonitor
The same technology, delivered well, runs far above the field median, and the best monitored systems exceed 4.4.
48 hours
The first window that tells you anything
Enough time to see whether the installed system is behaving the way it was designed to, or still sitting on factory defaults.
Where the gap is made.
The two cohorts differ in more than delivery: the field trial is broad, and the monitored set chose to be monitored. So the spread is a warning rather than a measurement of commissioning alone. But commissioning is the one cause anyone can act on in the first days, and three failure patterns do much of the damage.
Factory defaults left in place
Flow temperatures, weather compensation and commissioning settings are often left where the factory set them rather than tuned to the home they went into.
Design intent is lost at handover
What was assumed in design rarely survives intact into installation and aftercare, so teams are forced to reconstruct the context later.
Paper checks do not verify real behaviour
Self-reported checklists record that a step happened. They do not prove the system behaved as expected once live.
How verification reads an install.
An evidence-backed decision on whether the installed system behaved as designed, made in the first hours rather than the first winter.
Expected performance baseline
Start from the design assumptions, system settings and operating envelope that describe a correct installation.
Observed behaviour in the first hours
Early telemetry and live performance signals show how the installed system is behaving.
Evidence-backed quality decision
Predicted and observed behaviour compared, anything out of line flagged, and a record kept of what was found and what happens next.
What the first piece of work shows.
The first piece of work is small by design: one cohort, six to eight weeks. It shows whether you see quality issues sooner, decide on better evidence, and know where verification pays next.
- Which installations look correct and which need review first
- Whether certain installer cohorts, regions or system types drift more than others, within your own base and never published
- Which issues are commissioning and configuration problems rather than product defects
- What evidence is missing from the quality process today
- Where the record should extend next across the base you answer for
- OEM assessment and quoting run on HeatAssure in production today.
How the numbers are validated is on Technology.
Where these numbers come from.
This page summarises the argument in The Commissioning Quality Gap. The key public references behind it:
Field performance and commissioning
BEIS Electrification of Heat Demonstration Project, Energy Saving Trust field trials, and public monitoring data such as HeatPumpMonitor.org.
Market and quality pressure
Heat Pump Association market reporting, the MCS quality framework, and the commercial pressure to scale without letting installation quality drift.
The questions this usually raises.
Use the proof on your own installs.
If commissioning quality is already visible as a service, warranty or installer problem, the next step is a scoped Commissioning Verification deployment.