Problem is unlike USA very little field or asset data (due to it being owner based) on what is working or not - slot of claims not settled in court - so yeah lost

Worst is risk depends enormously where it's build, by who and what components. My biggest concern is the price focus on Bess -

Heavy laden question. Personally would do a bankability study of each component to see the reliability/durability of the component and choose from there. There are few manufacturers that can do everything and do it right - even then a manufacturer can have great and bad quality within their sites. Having a good RFP, selection based on tests (in science I trust therefor everyone must bring data) is a better approach. Look at Volta Foundation reports, Ease guidelines, VDE 90038, solar power Europe best practices and solar bankability studies (now part of TRUST PV) to build a good Foundation. Notebook LLM can help build a RFP doing so.

As noted by Fraunhofer ISE the negative deviation of a power value under nameplate has increased of up to -3% in the last years alongside tests done by parties like Odin Spire, SolarTester https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2025/solar-module-output-often-overstated.html This is a result of - N-type (HJT, TOPCON, xBC) having a higher capacitance effect (like a battery need longer time to get to their true full power) and solar simulators using different methodologies to achieve measuring the current and voltage of the module (Dragonback (Pasan), Single Long Pulse (Spire), Hystersis (Halm) and other. - Differences between the calibration module of the PV module and the produced module - Cell quality issues and binning (ergo the importance for contracting Grade A cells) - Due to the big manufacturers loosing billions cost savings in BOM, processes and personnel also leads to variations (note it costs ~10.7 euro cent/Wp to make a TOPCON module, and now prices range from 0.05-0.08 euro/Wp. Depending on the scale of the problem and AQL used can result in lower PR issues. Though note even the best budget to risk AQL can only catch 50% of the time an issue - and if caught needs to be further expanded to see if it's a batch issue. Starting with a lower nameplate power is usually a result of variations in Isc, and you could opt to go for Isc binning instead of Pmpp as this also reduces module quality losses- however this depends on the budget and risk you have.

@Marian Dor happy to be of service of needed

@Marian Dor feel free to reach out via [email protected]