Add your name to the record
Who has checked which claim, what they found, and what it changed. Every entry links to the public thread it came from.
Standing here is earned by reviewing, not by agreeing. A reviewer who finds a real error ranks at the top of this page, above everyone who confirmed a number. That is deliberate: the most valuable thing anyone can do for this filing is break part of it before the Board does.
Credentials are shown so a reader knows what someone can speak to — not to rank people. A plant operator's judgement about effluent temperature is worth more than a licence in an unrelated field, and the table is ordered by contribution, never by letters after a name.
Standings
| Reviewer | Discipline | Claims checked | Verdict and finding | Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent technical reader Practitioner — external assessment of public claims against missing proof; not a licensed Board witness |
Power systems & resource adequacy | scenario_conservative_mw scenario_reference_mw hub_net_electric_mw elcc_bess_illustrative unmanaged_electrification_mw hybrid_20yr_low_b |
Disputed Core portfolio worth testing; the file has not proved it replaces 750 MW of gas at equal reliability or for $1.5–1.8B. Strongest defensible description is a ~400 MW domestic flexibility portfolio plus a 200 MW import bridge. |
Read it 2026-08-19 |
One review is on the record, and it disputes part of the case: six claims checked, none corrected, and the reviewer's summary is published above as written. Forty-four of the forty-eight seats are still open.
See the claims open for review
By discipline
Where review is still needed. The bar is claims checked against claims open in that field. One review can check claims in more than one field, so these counts do not all sit under the discipline the review was filed in.
How credentials are shown
Any of these can review, and all appear in the same table. The tier tells a Board reader how to weigh an opinion; it does not decide whose voice counts.
| Tier | Means |
|---|---|
| Verified licence | Licence number checked against the public register |
| Licensed, self-declared | P.Eng. / P.Geo., not yet checked by us |
| Certified technologist | C.E.T. / A.Sc.T. or equivalent |
| Academic | Faculty or postgraduate researcher in the field |
| Practitioner | Works in the field; domain knowledge is the credential |
| Pseudonymous | Identity withheld by choice; reasoning stands alone |
Reviewing under a pseudonym is a first-class option, not a lesser one. Many people who could help here work for the utility, a vendor, or the province, and we would rather have the argument than the name.
How an entry gets here
- Post your review in the forum, in the category for that discipline.
- Say which registry key you checked, what you did, and what you concluded.
- It is transcribed here with a link to your thread. Nothing appears without a public post behind it.
- If you found an error, the registry is amended, the filing is regenerated, and the change is credited on the record.