Resources and guides
Short, practical explanations of the distinctions that matter when turning a model into cost, carbon and risk intelligence.
Why IFC data quality decides everything downstream
Cost, carbon and risk outputs inherit the completeness of the model. This guide explains the property sets and classifications that matter most, and how missing fields (for example a fire rating or a material) change what later analysis can claim.
Information gap analysis →Read, computed or both: where model quantities come from
Model quantities can be read directly from IFC or derived from geometry. Knowing which applies to each quantity is the difference between a checkable schedule and a black box.
Quantity takeoff →Embodied carbon vs whole-life carbon
Embodied carbon (for example modules A1–A3) is not the same as whole-life carbon. This guide explains the distinction and why a platform should state its scope rather than imply completeness.
Embodied carbon assessment →What model-based risk visualisation can and cannot claim
Visualising affected zones and routes on a model is a useful way to discuss risk. It is not an engineering-validated simulation, and a static model view is not an operational digital twin.
Digital twin risk modelling →