# Tie each energy claim to the home and evidence it describes.

A builder energy performance claim needs a project reference, a current source and wording that matches what the source establishes. Separate design intentions, assessments, completed tests and program certification in your project copy. Show what was reviewed, what remains unverified and who approved the explanation before you publish it.

## What does your energy claim describe?

Start with the sentence you want a buyer to read. Underline its subject. Does it describe a planned feature, a particular home, a completed assessment or your entire building practice? Keep the source beside the sentence while you edit. A claim about every home needs evidence covering that scope.

For this editorial method, give each source a clear category. Design intention describes a proposed approach in a current project document. An assessment records the analysis described in that document, including its assumptions. A completed test records the tested condition and reported scope. Certification wording needs the applicable program record and a check of its permitted use.

These categories are writing controls. They do not define technical standards or establish that one category satisfies another. If a document uses a specialized term, ask its responsible reviewer to explain that term before you paraphrase it. Preserve a limitation when the simpler wording would otherwise remove it.

The [positioning library](/articles/positioning/) connects evidence with buyer-facing distinctions. Here the narrower task is matching energy wording to the status of one home's supporting documents.

## How do you connect the wording to its evidence?

Make a claim-to-evidence table before writing the project page. Use a private project identifier internally. Agree on a public project label separately. Do not expose a buyer's identity, address or private document link to make the reference appear specific.

| Project identity | Document type | Date | Scope | Reviewer | Allowed wording |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Home reference and plan revision | Design intention | Current issue date | Proposed feature and unresolved decisions | Person responsible for the design description | Describe the planned feature with its current status |
| Home reference and assessed revision | Assessment | Assessment issue date | Analysis, assumptions and exclusions stated in the source | Person responsible for explaining the assessment | Describe the assessment without presenting it as a completed test |
| Home reference and tested condition | Completed test report | Recorded test date | What was tested and the report's limits | Person responsible for checking the report | Describe the documented test within its stated scope |
| Home reference matched to program record | Certification record | Record and verification dates | Exact project and program status | Person assigned to check the record and publication use | Use certification wording only after the source and use are verified |

Fill the table from documents you possess and can reopen. Empty cells stay unresolved. A planned test belongs in a pending-work note until a completed report supports different wording. Do not promote the sentence because a photographer has finished the gallery or a page is due for publication.

Keep the document issue date separate from the date someone checked it. Both matter to the review trail. Use the broader [builder proof-point register](/articles/positioning/builder-proof-points/) to record approved excerpts, permissions and every place the wording appears.

## What should buyers see beside an energy statement?

Give buyers enough context to understand the statement without opening your private archive. Name the feature or activity, identify the project scope and explain the status. Include a reviewed public source where you can share it. Keep internal approval notes in the project system.

For a proposed feature, say that it is proposed. For an assessment, explain which project version the document considers. For a completed test, identify the subject of the test without expanding its conclusion. For a program reference, verify the project's record before putting certification language into a headline or caption.

The [ENERGY STAR new-homes page](https://www.energystar.gov/newhomes) provides a public starting point for that program's certified homes and apartments. Its general information is not evidence that your particular home holds certification. Use it as program context beside a separately verified project record.

Do not borrow a program's general benefits language as the result of your own project. This method does not require a score, savings estimate or comparison with another house. If the source cannot support a proposed number or outcome, remove that statement from the draft.

Review images and captions together. A photograph can show the feature pictured. Have the responsible reviewer decide what additional energy statement the project documents support. The guide to [communicating build quality](/articles/positioning/communicating-build-quality/) covers field evidence that deserves its own explanation before later work hides it.

## How would a fictional project page change?

Consider an unnamed, entirely fictional project whose writing folder contains a current design note and an assessment draft. The completed-test field and program-record field are empty. This example demonstrates editing choices. It describes no actual home, achievement or certification.

**Before:** “An energy-efficient home with proven performance throughout.” The sentence supplies no source or status. “Proven” also reaches beyond the fictional folder's available documents. The reader cannot tell whether the page describes an intention, an analysis or completed work.

**After:** “The current design note identifies the proposed energy-related features for this home. The assessment remains in draft review. Completed-test documentation and project certification status have not been verified for this page.” This version publishes the known status without inventing an outcome.

The second version is suitable as an editorial example, not a template to paste onto every project. A real page should name the actual feature once its source has been checked. If that detail is still unresolved, leave the feature claim out and assign the missing source to a reviewer.

A separate caption could explain which project revision the proposed feature belongs to. It should not label a component photograph as proof of whole-home performance. Check the same boundary in the page summary, gallery text and any downloadable project description.

## What approval process keeps the claim within scope?

Use a short publication sequence with an accountable person at each [handoff](/process/handoff/). The sequence below is a proposed editorial practice. It is not a program certification procedure or a substitute for the work described in a technical report.

1. **Capture the exact claim.** Copy the proposed headline, paragraph and caption into the review record.

2. **Identify the home.** Match the source to the project's current document references and publication scope.

3. **Classify the evidence.** Record whether the sentence concerns intent, assessment, completed testing or a verified program record.

4. **Read the limitations.** Preserve assumptions, exclusions, dates and pending status that change the meaning.

5. **Ask the responsible reviewer.** Have that person check the plain-language explanation against the source.

6. **Prepare the public excerpt.** Confirm permission and remove private details before sharing a document or image.

7. **Approve the full page.** Read metadata and captions alongside the main paragraph for broader implied claims.

8. **Record the next review trigger.** Recheck when a source, specification, project status or approved sentence changes.

When several documents disagree, hold the dependent claim and ask the responsible reviewer to resolve the conflict. Do not average statements or select the stronger result for the headline. Record which document replaces the older source and why the public sentence changed.

Bring approved claims into the [Positioning stage](/process/positioning/). When the document owner or approval path is unclear, use the [build-process documentation guide](/guides/writing-down-your-build-process/) to write down that responsibility before preparing more copy.

## What belongs in a copyable energy content brief?

Copy the fields below into a project-page assignment. Complete the source and approval fields before treating the draft as publishable. Give the writer a public summary, with a private reference that the reviewer can retrieve without placing it on the website.

```
Energy claim content brief
Public project label:
Private project and revision
  reference:
Buyer question to answer:
Exact proposed sentence:
Evidence category:
Document title and issue date:
Source section supporting the
  sentence:
Assumptions and exclusions to
  preserve:
Pending evidence or unresolved
  conflict:
Responsible technical reviewer:
Approved public excerpt and
  permissions:
Approved metadata and caption
  wording:
Verification date:
Publication locations:
Change that requires another
  review:
```

Use the pending-evidence field even when the page will omit the unsupported claim. It preserves the next research task without turning an unanswered question into a public assurance. Give a replacement writer the approved wording and the unresolved issue as separate fields.

Check related upkeep language with the same care. The companion guide to [low-maintenance home claims](/articles/positioning/low-maintenance-home-builder-content/) explains how product records and responsibility assignments support a different kind of buyer comparison.

## Which questions should an energy claim review answer?

### Can a design intention support a completed-performance claim?

A design intention supports wording about the proposed approach described in its source. Before publishing a completed-performance claim, obtain the applicable completed evidence and have the responsible reviewer approve its scope and wording.

### Should an assessment be described as a test?

Describe an assessment using the document's own activity and limitations. If the source describes analysis, keep that status visible. Do not rename the assessment a completed test to shorten a project-page sentence.

### Can a general program page prove a home's certification?

A general program page supplies context about the program. Verify the particular home's program record separately before using project certification wording. Have the assigned reviewer check the intended public use as well as the record.

### What should a builder publish when evidence is missing?

Publish only the energy information supported by current, reviewed sources. Leave the dependent performance claim out when a needed document is missing. Keep the evidence gap and its responsible reviewer in the private content brief.