[Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
Germán Campos
gc at ecoeficiente.es
Fri Dec 12 00:27:11 PST 2025
Thanks, Chris, that makes sense. Simply providing the models would reduce
malpractice, even if only a fraction of them are audited.
Regarding the bubble thing, I’m not so sure. Perhaps the development will
settle into a more rational pace, but it’s unstoppable. Sooner or later it
will affect many sectors, including ours. Although by then we might already
be retired...
Regards,
Germán
El jue, 11 dic 2025 a las 21:21, <chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com> escribió:
> Hi Germán,
>
>
>
> We’re definitely at an inflection point, and it’s impossible to predict
> where things are heading. We may be simultaneously underrating, and
> overrating the potential. I’ve considered LLMs as part of my collection of
> time-saving hacks. I’m probably one of the slower-to-adopt group though.
>
>
>
> Whilst AI is now here to stay, many (including me) believe that it’s a
> bubble – commercially speaking. Data centre development is ecologically and
> commercially unsustainable. There’s weird ownership relationships between
> the main players (nvidea, Microsoft). The returns diminish, and people are
> losing trust.
>
>
>
> I do need to clarify the point regarding *escrow*. My proposal is that
> the model is held in trust – not necessarily that every model is audited.
> You only need to audit enough models to deter malpractice, or if there is a
> dispute. This is more like source-code escrow than other forms of legal
> escrow.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Bldg-sim <bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> *On Behalf Of *Germán
> Campos via Bldg-sim
> *Sent:* 11 December 2025 18:50
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 216, Issue 3
>
>
>
> A very interesting debate.
> In my view, the real challenge is not that AI could fabricate LEED
> documentation (after all, a human modeller can also choose to manipulate a
> report) but rather that AI has the potential to automate the entire
> workflow from start to finish. That would fundamentally change the value
> proposition of our profession.
>
> Regarding the idea of placing model input files in escrow, I’ve always
> felt that the main barrier isn’t technical but practical: having full
> access to inputs would require reviewers to engage at a much deeper level
> and would inevitably expose a far greater number of modelling errors than
> current review processes are designed (or resourced) to handle. We have all
> seen highly questionable models pass review with relative ease.
>
> Improving this would unquestionably benefit good modellers, but it would
> also require a significant shift in how certification review is structured
> and funded. That’s why AI raises important questions: if automation makes
> it easier to produce polished reporting, then verifiable modelling
> practices and transparent data become even more essential to protect the
> integrity of the process.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Germán
>
>
>
>
>
> El jue, 11 dic 2025 a las 0:54, <bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
> escribió:
>
> Send Bldg-sim mailing list submissions to
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bldg-sim digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: cheat-gpt (Richard Sapwell)
> 2. Re: cheat-gpt (chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Richard Sapwell <richardmsapwell at gmail.com>
> To: chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com
> Cc: Bill Bishop <William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com>, Karen Walkerman <
> kwalkerman at gmail.com>, David S Eldridge <deldridge at grummanbutkus.com>,
> bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:47:28 +1100
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
> 👍
>
> Richard Sapwell reacted via Gmail
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5VKCoFf5VHavQ9cIbic/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fgmail%2Fabout%2F%3Futm_source%3Dgmail-in-product%26utm_medium%3Det%26utm_campaign%3Demojireactionemail%23app>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 08:36, <chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I’m very grateful for everyone’s thoughts. Speaking of LMs I’ve opened a
> NotebookLM on this thread, by copying the text and pasting it in as a
> source. It gave this summary, and a nice little mind map:
>
> The provided text consists of an email chain from December 2025 among
> building simulation professionals discussing the *existential threat and
> ethical risks posed by Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI* to
> their industry, specifically focusing on energy modelling and certification
> processes like LEED. *Chris Yates initiates the discussion* by
> questioning the value of modelling professionals if AI can easily generate
> seemingly legitimate reports and outputs, suggesting solutions like tying
> design models to building operation calibration and placing model input
> files in escrow. *Other contributors elaborate on the dangers of
> fabricated documentation* and the erosion of human decision-making, with *Bill
> Bishop proposing ethical mandates* such as requiring human review and
> clear identification of all AI-assisted content. *Karen Walkerman
> highlights the actual value of human modelers* in providing design
> feedback and building calibration, while *Richard Sapwell reinforces the
> need for human expertise* in regulatory interpretation and systems
> thinking to move beyond easily commoditised paperwork. Collectively, the
> emails explore how to *safeguard professional value by reinforcing
> verifiable modelling practices* against the rise of sophisticated
> automated reporting.
>
>
>
> I hope loading your contributions into NotebookLM is OK with you all.
> Please let me know if you want them removed, or if you want me to share it
> with you… it even generated a podcast!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> *From:* Bill Bishop <William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com>
> *Sent:* 10 December 2025 16:25
> *To:* Karen Walkerman <kwalkerman at gmail.com>; Chris Yates
> chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com; David S Eldridge
> deldridge at grummanbutkus.com
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
>
>
> There may be no way to put the AI genie back in the bottle at this point.
> The temptation is growing larger every day to wish for more wishes.
>
>
>
> We tell ourselves that we’ll only use AI to do grunt work like report
> writing. Next, we’ll extend that to templates that help auto-generate model
> inputs, and model geometry. We’ll upload project drawings to our AI agents
> to generate more model inputs. Of course those project drawings will be
> generated by AI to some extent, and a larger extent over time. We’ll use AI
> to auto-populate model input and output tables to facilitate report
> writing. At every step along the way, there will be less human decision
> making and less human review of assumptions – and less need to hire and
> train new professionals and maintain professional credentials. Five years
> from now, design firms will simply prompt the building-generative AI:
> “Design an office building large enough for 150 employees, at least two
> stories but no more than eight, to be built at the corner of Elm Street and
> Asimov Ave. Base it on the architectural style of Gehry but with more
> windows. Use all-electric building systems. Optimize for maximum on-site
> renewable energy generation.” The AI will generate the drawing set and
> specs but the design won’t accommodate 150 employees because the HR-AI told
> the Design-AI that the Management-AI will be recommending layoffs.
>
>
>
> Sure, we can do damage control by proposing specific new requirements for
> some types of projects, but there are many applications of energy modeling
> and we should strive for adopting some simple, elegant, universal language
> and limitations governing AI use that can be applied to all energy modeling
> projects. All professions should be developing and adopting revised ethical
> codes to limit the real and perceived short- and long-term damage to the
> value our professions provide. Some ideas for sample language:
>
> - All design decisions will be made by humans.
> - All content and deliverables that have been created with AI
> assistance will be clearly identified as such.
> - All AI-generated content and deliverables will be reviewed for
> accuracy by humans consistent with standard QA/QC procedures.
> - QA/QC procedures will be performed by humans without AI-assisted
> autocorrections.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop*, PE, CEM, LEED AP, ASHRAE (BEMP, BEAP, CDP)
> Associate Principal | Project Executive | Sustainability & Energy
>
> [Human-generated. I am not a robot.]
>
> [image: now IMEG]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5JxsRFB_5f9GQ_jUWpc/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imegcorp.com%2F>
>
> *IMEG* | *formerly
> Pathfinder *(585)
> 698-1956 | phone
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street | Rochester, NY 14608 (315)
> 879-1122 | mobile
>
> William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com *website*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6ey8q__YA-nCApnNHoD/https%3A%2F%2Fimegcorp.com%2F>
> * | **vCard*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6uu7qQ1SvDGHAZCVv8z/https%3A%2F%2Fdynasend.com%2Fsignatures%2Fvcard%2FWilliam.J.Bishop-at-imegcorp.com.vcf>
> * | **map*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5NqqvzFufoSMgRy96lO/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2FPathfinder%2BEngineers%2B%2526%2BArchitects%2BLLP%2F%4043.1504815%2C-77.6145058%2C17z%2Fdata%3D%213m1%214b1%214m6%213m5%211s0x89d6b4fe9e48aab1%3A0x6991ae3d559d5aee%218m2%213d43.1504776%214d-77.6119309%2116s%252Fg%252F1tcw955j%3Fhl%3Den%26entry%3Dttu>
> [image: Twitter]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6a29k2qagGSKgWKPINj/https%3A%2F%2Fmerlin.allaboutbirds.org%2F>
> [image: Facebook]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6aKCmBRptE2wQB3OCBf/https%3A%2F%2Ffossilfreefunds.org%2F>
> [image: LinkedIn]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5RMzDEdRkjZ7wkL3QPU/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fimeg-corp>
>
> Learn more
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5V3N7417m8VGwLn_QYj/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imegcorp.com%2Fabout%2Four-story%2F> about
> us and the IMEG story! Ride your bike! [image: A person on a
> motorcycle Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
> *From:* Bldg-sim <bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> *On Behalf Of *Karen
> Walkerman via Bldg-sim
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:25 AM
> *To:* Chris Yates <chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
>
>
> *External Email: *Treat links and attachments with caution.
>
> This is very timely... We're giving a webinar next Wednesday, Dec 17th at
> 12pm EST where we discuss our AI approach (and share the EP3 AI
> integration).
>
>
>
> https://ep3.solutions/webinarsignup/
>
>
>
> I firmly believe that the value of energy modeling lies in the ability of
> modelers to provide feedback at the SD, CD and value-engineering stages of
> a project, and as a tool to catch building operation issues if a model
> calibration is completed.
>
>
>
> Other than delivering LEED points, a lot of LEED models don't deliver true
> value to the project, but that is where projects have a budget for
> modeling.
>
>
>
> With EP3, the goal is to provide one tool that allows modelers to easily
> provide design feedback and develop the final model for LEED, incentive, or
> code compliance.
>
>
>
> We'll be discussing all of it on Wednesday - come join if you're
> interested
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 14:44 Chris Yates via Bldg-sim <
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> Just a philosophical one; maybe even an existential one 😐
>
>
>
> Given LLMs’ “autocorrect on steroids” abilities, what risk do we see
> ourselves exposed to as modelling professionals?
>
>
>
> Let’s give an example…
>
> - A full LEED application including reports, unmet load tables,
> “error” reports.
> - Not based on modelling – all reports and outputs generated with LLMs.
>
>
>
> I think it would be relatively easy to do this, and present something that
> would stand up to review.
>
>
>
> I think this poses the following questions:
>
> 1. If our main value offering can be replaced with auto-complete, what
> is the value of what we’re doing, anyway?
> 2. How can we improve the value?
> 3. How can we protect that value?
>
>
>
> I’d like to propose some solutions:
>
> - Tie Design stage models into the Operation of the building –
> calibrate
> - Rather than just submitting reports, place model input files into
> *escrow* with GBCI (or their local equivalent)
>
>
>
> Controversial?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com>
> To: "'Bill Bishop'" <William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com>, "'Karen Walkerman'" <
> kwalkerman at gmail.com>, "'David S Eldridge'" <deldridge at grummanbutkus.com>,
> "'Richard Sapwell'" <richardmsapwell at gmail.com>
> Cc: <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 21:36:07 -0000
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I’m very grateful for everyone’s thoughts. Speaking of LMs I’ve opened a
> NotebookLM on this thread, by copying the text and pasting it in as a
> source. It gave this summary, and a nice little mind map:
>
> The provided text consists of an email chain from December 2025 among
> building simulation professionals discussing the *existential threat and
> ethical risks posed by Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI* to
> their industry, specifically focusing on energy modelling and certification
> processes like LEED. *Chris Yates initiates the discussion* by
> questioning the value of modelling professionals if AI can easily generate
> seemingly legitimate reports and outputs, suggesting solutions like tying
> design models to building operation calibration and placing model input
> files in escrow. *Other contributors elaborate on the dangers of
> fabricated documentation* and the erosion of human decision-making, with *Bill
> Bishop proposing ethical mandates* such as requiring human review and
> clear identification of all AI-assisted content. *Karen Walkerman
> highlights the actual value of human modelers* in providing design
> feedback and building calibration, while *Richard Sapwell reinforces the
> need for human expertise* in regulatory interpretation and systems
> thinking to move beyond easily commoditised paperwork. Collectively, the
> emails explore how to *safeguard professional value by reinforcing
> verifiable modelling practices* against the rise of sophisticated
> automated reporting.
>
>
>
> I hope loading your contributions into NotebookLM is OK with you all.
> Please let me know if you want them removed, or if you want me to share it
> with you… it even generated a podcast!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> *From:* Bill Bishop <William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com>
> *Sent:* 10 December 2025 16:25
> *To:* Karen Walkerman <kwalkerman at gmail.com>; Chris Yates
> chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com; David S Eldridge
> deldridge at grummanbutkus.com
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
>
>
> There may be no way to put the AI genie back in the bottle at this point.
> The temptation is growing larger every day to wish for more wishes.
>
>
>
> We tell ourselves that we’ll only use AI to do grunt work like report
> writing. Next, we’ll extend that to templates that help auto-generate model
> inputs, and model geometry. We’ll upload project drawings to our AI agents
> to generate more model inputs. Of course those project drawings will be
> generated by AI to some extent, and a larger extent over time. We’ll use AI
> to auto-populate model input and output tables to facilitate report
> writing. At every step along the way, there will be less human decision
> making and less human review of assumptions – and less need to hire and
> train new professionals and maintain professional credentials. Five years
> from now, design firms will simply prompt the building-generative AI:
> “Design an office building large enough for 150 employees, at least two
> stories but no more than eight, to be built at the corner of Elm Street and
> Asimov Ave. Base it on the architectural style of Gehry but with more
> windows. Use all-electric building systems. Optimize for maximum on-site
> renewable energy generation.” The AI will generate the drawing set and
> specs but the design won’t accommodate 150 employees because the HR-AI told
> the Design-AI that the Management-AI will be recommending layoffs.
>
>
>
> Sure, we can do damage control by proposing specific new requirements for
> some types of projects, but there are many applications of energy modeling
> and we should strive for adopting some simple, elegant, universal language
> and limitations governing AI use that can be applied to all energy modeling
> projects. All professions should be developing and adopting revised ethical
> codes to limit the real and perceived short- and long-term damage to the
> value our professions provide. Some ideas for sample language:
>
> - All design decisions will be made by humans.
> - All content and deliverables that have been created with AI
> assistance will be clearly identified as such.
> - All AI-generated content and deliverables will be reviewed for
> accuracy by humans consistent with standard QA/QC procedures.
> - QA/QC procedures will be performed by humans without AI-assisted
> autocorrections.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop*, PE, CEM, LEED AP, ASHRAE (BEMP, BEAP, CDP)
> Associate Principal | Project Executive | Sustainability & Energy
>
> [Human-generated. I am not a robot.]
>
> [image: now IMEG]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6e0tAV44Mo3gga6N659/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imegcorp.com%2F>
>
> *IMEG* | *formerly
> Pathfinder *(585)
> 698-1956 | phone
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street | Rochester, NY 14608 (315)
> 879-1122 | mobile
>
> William.J.Bishop at imegcorp.com *website*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5V5-XxPHArkKgIAIM2G/https%3A%2F%2Fimegcorp.com%2F>
> * | **vCard*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6WdHS2W6Qs8EgQXkGGC/https%3A%2F%2Fdynasend.com%2Fsignatures%2Fvcard%2FWilliam.J.Bishop-at-imegcorp.com.vcf>
> * | **map*
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM5RQUCZuy7A6Hw1evYaR/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2FPathfinder%2BEngineers%2B%2526%2BArchitects%2BLLP%2F%4043.1504815%2C-77.6145058%2C17z%2Fdata%3D%213m1%214b1%214m6%213m5%211s0x89d6b4fe9e48aab1%3A0x6991ae3d559d5aee%218m2%213d43.1504776%214d-77.6119309%2116s%252Fg%252F1tcw955j%3Fhl%3Den%26entry%3Dttu>
> [image: Twitter]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6edXRby5sxVagqqeTJ_/https%3A%2F%2Fmerlin.allaboutbirds.org%2F>
> [image: Facebook]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6Om5kHznd78-ALu8cRT/https%3A%2F%2Ffossilfreefunds.org%2F>
> [image: LinkedIn]
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM51gIP1XeTrrigwBBvd5/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fimeg-corp>
>
> Learn more
> <https://9d759e05.streak-link.com/CsOeM6WtrYXqOkhYMwjwfGph/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imegcorp.com%2Fabout%2Four-story%2F> about
> us and the IMEG story! Ride your bike! [image: A person on a
> motorcycle Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
> *From:* Bldg-sim <bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> *On Behalf Of *Karen
> Walkerman via Bldg-sim
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:25 AM
> *To:* Chris Yates <chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] cheat-gpt
>
>
>
> *External Email: *Treat links and attachments with caution.
>
> This is very timely... We're giving a webinar next Wednesday, Dec 17th at
> 12pm EST where we discuss our AI approach (and share the EP3 AI
> integration).
>
>
>
> https://ep3.solutions/webinarsignup/
>
>
>
> I firmly believe that the value of energy modeling lies in the ability of
> modelers to provide feedback at the SD, CD and value-engineering stages of
> a project, and as a tool to catch building operation issues if a model
> calibration is completed.
>
>
>
> Other than delivering LEED points, a lot of LEED models don't deliver true
> value to the project, but that is where projects have a budget for
> modeling.
>
>
>
> With EP3, the goal is to provide one tool that allows modelers to easily
> provide design feedback and develop the final model for LEED, incentive, or
> code compliance.
>
>
>
> We'll be discussing all of it on Wednesday - come join if you're
> interested
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 14:44 Chris Yates via Bldg-sim <
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> Just a philosophical one; maybe even an existential one 😐
>
>
>
> Given LLMs’ “autocorrect on steroids” abilities, what risk do we see
> ourselves exposed to as modelling professionals?
>
>
>
> Let’s give an example…
>
> - A full LEED application including reports, unmet load tables,
> “error” reports.
> - Not based on modelling – all reports and outputs generated with LLMs.
>
>
>
> I think it would be relatively easy to do this, and present something that
> would stand up to review.
>
>
>
> I think this poses the following questions:
>
> 1. If our main value offering can be replaced with auto-complete, what
> is the value of what we’re doing, anyway?
> 2. How can we improve the value?
> 3. How can we protect that value?
>
>
>
> I’d like to propose some solutions:
>
> - Tie Design stage models into the Operation of the building –
> calibrate
> - Rather than just submitting reports, place model input files into
> *escrow* with GBCI (or their local equivalent)
>
>
>
> Controversial?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>
> ᐧ
>
ᐧ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5138 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 420 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 387 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2724 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20251212/bbd7dc2c/attachment-0004.png>
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list