Source 01 / Invoice
Same in every caseMonthly fixed service charge
Aug 1, 2026 to Aug 31, 2026
$1,200
Observed billed amount
Inspect invoice source ↗An answer you can trace
Four fictional billing reviews: a discrepancy, a clean result, a contract minimum, or a missing reading.
Recorded audit case
Fictional · September 2026 · 2,880 readings
Lower usage, unchanged bill. Compare with “Every line agrees”: both totals are $223,000. This is not an operating recommendation or a curtailment-credit calculation.
No supported finding
Lower usage, unchanged bill
In this fictional contract, reducing a constant load from 4 MW to 3 MW lowers the energy charge. The minimum top-up rises by the same amount. The demand floor still applies.
- Invoice total
- $223,000
- Reconstructed total
- $223,000
LOOK INSIDE THE TOTALSELECT A CHARGE ↓
4 MW
3 MW
Minimum / Source equationDIFFERENCE
$150,000 energy minimum − $108,000 energy charge = $42,000 top-up. The minimum covers energy only.
4 MW $6,000 3 MW $42,000
Inspect source records
Minimum records
Fictional inputs and recorded engine output. Links open the retained files in a new tab.
4 MW reference
- Governing termsContract JSON
- Supplied readingsMeter JSON
- Submitted chargesInvoice JSON
3 MW case
- Governing termsContract JSON
- Supplied readingsMeter JSON
- Submitted chargesInvoice JSON
The derivation identifies the inputs used for this charge. The receipt records file hashes. These unsigned records are not independent verification or evidence of recovered cash.
Compare with “Every line agrees”: both totals are $223,000. This is not an operating recommendation or a curtailment-credit calculation.
Four recorded engine outputs from fictional contract, meter, and invoice inputs. The controls select retained cases; they do not run an audit of your site. These unsigned examples do not demonstrate document extraction, curtailment-credit calculation, or recovered cash. Verify this case ↗ Source versions ↗
Review brief
A brief for your team or Pallara, based on the selected example.
Further examples
Start with a simpler, one-charge calculation
One fictional day, 96 meter intervals, and a fixed rate. Follow the calculation from source to finding.
The accepted source records
Metered energy
96 readings / 15-minute intervals
Inspect meter data ↗- 96,000kWh
Contract rate
Fixed energy charge
Inspect the term ↗- $50per MWh
Invoice charge
Separate from the calculation
Inspect the invoice ↗- $5,000billed
Reconstructed charge
$4,800
96 MWh × $50/MWh
Follow the calculation ↗$200 supported difference
The invoice exceeds the reconstructed charge. The finding carries the source records and calculation for review. It is not evidence of a refund or recovered cash.
One synthetic energy charge for one day. This example does not calculate curtailment credits or represent a complete customer audit. The preview is unsigned. Its calculation, source hashes, and workbook were checked for reproducibility. Inspect the replay receipt ↗
When does the evidence fail to support a finding?
Evidence completeness
This separate synthetic example uses a monthly fixed service charge. The bill is $1,200 and the comparison input is a prepared $1,000, not a calculation performed by this example. Change the contract evidence to inspect four recorded audit outcomes.
Source 02 / Contract term
Fixed monthly service term
- Effective from
- Aug 1, 2026
- Effective through
- Aug 31, 2026
- Prepared comparison input
- $1,000
Audit result
$200 supported difference
A supported discrepancy, not recovered cash.
The cited term covers the full invoice period. The audit accepts the prepared comparison and records a supported difference. Recovery still requires a separate resolution and posted cash.
Contract-supported comparison: $1,000
What this sample proves and how to verify it
One normalized fixed-service-charge fixture with a prepared comparison amount. No source extraction, automatic charge calculation, interval analysis or curtailment-credit calculation is exercised. A supported discrepancy does not establish a refund entitlement, customer savings or cash recovery.
These are four recorded outputs from Pallara’s audit engine. Selecting a case changes the evidence and result shown; it does not run a new customer audit.
Each exported case passed input replay, workbook byte comparison, and signature verification. The sample signing key establishes file integrity, not customer identity or independent assurance.
Does a lower peak mean a lower bill?
Try the evidence / Fictional scenario
When a lower peak does not lower the bill
Same monthly energy. A load shift cuts the peak from 8 to 6 MW. Change the historical peak to see what the contract changes.
Modeled change in specified monthly charges
$9,272.79lower
The lower peak reduces the billed demand.
- Energy charge
- $160.00 higher
- Demand charge
- $9,432.79 lower
Why the answer changes
7.5 MW × 80% sets a 6 MW floor. Billing demand falls from 8 MW to 6 MW when the load shifts.
| Charge | Original | Shifted |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | $287,760.00 | $287,920.00 |
| Demand | $37,731.15 | $28,298.36 |
| Total | $325,491.15 | $316,218.36 |
Both schedules use 2,884 MWh. Shifting 2 MWh from $20/MWh to $100/MWh raises energy charges. Demand is priced at the assumed $4.716394/kW rate. Other charges, taxes, operating costs and workload feasibility are outside this comparison.
Download accepted inputs ↓Recorded engine outputs for a fictional month and assumed contract. Selected charges only, not a complete bill, customer savings or an operating recommendation.
Which terms explain your demand charge?
Bring this question to an audit →