Organizing test reports for a multi-model Korean NEP application

Create a single reference table for all models

Start with the 2026 NEP handbook and current application forms, and collect product names, model names, specifications, core configurations and uses in one table. The model management table proposed here supports application preparation; it is not a scheme rule determining which models may be submitted together or whether additional tests are required. First check whether the application, product description, test reports and catalogue use different names for the same model.

Explain how differences affect performance

Rather than merely stating that capacity or size differs, explain how materials, power, control methods and core components relate to performance. Models with different outputs may have different heat generation or durability conditions despite similar structures. Review technically which items are shared and which need separate validation. Distinguish the basic configuration from optional items so that sales bundles or options are not confused with the product configuration being evaluated.

Connect each test report to the relevant models

For each report, record the issuer, number, test date, sample identification, test method and result units. Link the relevant report beside each submitted model and flag models not directly tested. Extending a representative model’s results may require an explanation of equivalence or the effects of differences. Whether that explanation is sufficient must be checked against the assessment body’s current criteria; an internal judgment of similarity does not guarantee every model’s performance.

Show testing status and outstanding checks by model

First show which test evidence directly corresponds to each model. When one report is linked to several models, explain how its identified sample relates to each model and mark models without direct tests as untested. Empty cells expose missing evidence; do not fill them by copying another similar model’s results.

On small screens, swipe the table horizontally to read all columns.

Direct testing status and review status are distinct. Even after a test, unclear sample identification or conditions leave checks outstanding. Referring to another model’s evidence does not mean the model itself has been tested. Separately confirm submission scope and additional testing needs using current official criteria and guidance from the responsible organization.

When reports are updated, preserve prior numbers and links, and identify changed models, conditions and results. Before final submission, follow the model references across the application, drawings, photographs, product description and reports to verify consistency.

For comparison objects, conditions and units supporting claims of superior performance, use the evidence table in Separating core technology from applied products in a Korean NET technical description.

Find evidence gaps before commissioning tests

Identify empty evidence cells in the model/evaluation-item table and prioritize additional testing with both official requirements and technical risks in mind. Send the testing organization the sample model, target items, applicable standards and actual operating environment, rather than just a product name. Preserve version history when evidence is updated. Before submission, IRUMJAE recommends having another reviewer trace the connections among model names, photographs, drawings, specifications and reports.

Preparation checklist

• Submitted models and core configurations
• Model-to-report table showing direct testing and unverified items
• Basis for extending representative-model results
• Questions on additional tests and organization confirmation