EPIPSign in
Worked example
DEMO-PROP-001

10 Example Circuit

SYNTHETIC DEMONSTRATION RECORD
Sampletown NSW

This property, chronology, measurements, findings and verification records are fictional and are provided solely to demonstrate EPIP functionality. Sampletown is not a real locality and no postcode is assigned. No real client, property, provider or laboratory result appears anywhere on this record.

One water pathway has been rectified and independently verified. A second remains open, because the evidence does not establish its source.

  1. 01
    Property
    An Australian address
  2. 02
    Evidence
    What exists, and where it came from
  3. 03
    Intelligence
    What it establishes — and what it does not
  4. 04
    Action
    What would resolve the open questions
  5. 05
    Verification
    Whether it was actually closed
01

The six states, on this record

Every fact EPIP holds carries one of these. They describe how well something is known — not how serious it is.

How to read this record
VERIFIED
Independently documented and checked against evidence.
KNOWN
Evidence held in the record supports this.
REPORTED
Stated by a person. Not independently verified.
UNCERTAIN
Evidence conflicts, or there is not enough of it to conclude.
MISSING
No evidence exists. This is a gap, not a negative finding.
ACTION
Must be resolved before this pathway can close.
These describe how well something is known, not how serious it is. A missing item is a gap in the evidence — it is not a finding that the property is clear.
02

Where this property stands

Verified closed
Rear extension — box gutter overflow (Feb 2025)
Source identified
VERIFIED
Source rectified
VERIFIED
Drying demonstrated
VERIFIED
Materials addressed
VERIFIED
Post-repair check
VERIFIED
Recurrence check
VERIFIED
Investigation report establishing the gutter as the entry pathway. Replacement invoice and contractor record. Independent post-repair verification with moisture readings and a controlled water test. Six months with no recurrence.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
Still open
Sub-floor — southern perimeter moisture (Mar 2025)
Source identified
UNCERTAIN
Source rectified
MISSING
Drying demonstrated
MISSING
Materials addressed
MISSING
Post-repair check
MISSING
Recurrence check
UNCERTAIN
Missing evidence
Sub-floor monitoring across a rainfall event. Inspection and flow testing of the perimeter agricultural drain. Levels survey of the southern elevation. Nothing distinguishes surface ingress from a blocked drain or perched water.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
This is the part most property reporting gets wrong. The second pathway is not marked resolved because nobody has established what is causing it. EPIP will not close a pathway to make a record look tidy — an unresolved source is the most common reason a moisture problem returns.
03

Water and moisture events

ME-00013Ingress
2025-03-02Synthetic
Sub-floor — southern perimeter
Elevated sub-floor humidity and localised damp soil at the southern perimeter. Consistent with surface water ingress, a blocked agricultural drain, or perched water after rainfall. The available evidence does not distinguish between them.
Source UNCERTAINRepair: Unresolved
ME-00012Roof / Gutter Leak
2025-02-14Synthetic
Rear extension — northern wall, ceiling junction
Box gutter to the 2019 rear extension was undersized for the roof area it served. During sustained rainfall it overflowed internally at the wall junction. Established by flow testing during the March 2025 investigation.
Source KNOWNRepair: Repaired
SourceSynthetic demonstration data — fictional events, fictional dates.
04

Antecedent weather context

Rainfall total
187.4mm
Wet days
9
Maximum daily
71.2mm
Window
14days
Relative to climatology
Above Typical
SourceSynthetic demonstration data — Illustrative figures. Not supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology or any other authority, and not drawn from any observational dataset.
05

Observations and measurements

ReferenceTypeValueMethodAreaDate
DEMO-OBS-004Humidity78 % RHHygrometerSub-floor void — southern perimeter2025-03-11
DEMO-OBS-005Moisture Reading12.1 % WMEMoisture MeterRear extension — replaced northern wall, 300mm AFL2025-11-04
DEMO-OBS-006Condensation—Visual InspectionRear extension — northern wall cavity2025-11-04
DEMO-OBS-001Moisture Reading28.4 % WMEMoisture MeterRear extension — northern wall, 300mm AFL2025-03-11
DEMO-OBS-003Water Damage—Visual InspectionRear extension — ceiling junction2025-03-11
DEMO-OBS-002Moisture Reading11.2 % WMEMoisture MeterRear extension — southern wall, 300mm AFL (control)2025-03-11
SourceSynthetic demonstration data — no practitioner took these readings and no instrument recorded them.
06

Findings

Each finding states its evidence strength, what it does not establish, and the alternatives considered. One finding on this property is still awaiting human review and is therefore not shown — EPIP does not state an unvalidated conclusion.

ACTIONKNOWN
Water entry to the rear extension originated from overflow of the undersized box gutter installed with the 2019 extension, not from a failure of the roof covering.
What this does not establish
The number of overflow events before discovery is not established. Only the February 2025 period is corroborated by the rainfall context.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
OBSERVATIONUNCERTAIN
The contractor's completion record states all moisture issues were resolved in May 2025. The occupant reported an intermittent damp odour above the sub-floor access in September 2025. Both are retained; the contradiction is unresolved.
What this does not establish
The contractor's scope covered the rear extension wall assembly only. The odour report concerns a different location. The two may not be in conflict at all — but nothing on the record resolves it either way.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
OBSERVATIONMISSING
The sub-floor moisture mechanism at the southern perimeter is not established. Surface water ingress, a blocked agricultural drain and perched water after rainfall all remain consistent with the evidence held.
What this does not establish
A single humidity reading and one visual inspection cannot separate these mechanisms. No monitoring has been carried out across a rainfall event.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
CLEAREDKNOWN
The rectified box gutter pathway is verified closed. The replaced assembly was dry at verification, a controlled water test produced no entry, and no recurrence was observed over the six-month monitoring period.
What this does not establish
Verification covers the rectified pathway only. It says nothing about the unresolved sub-floor mechanism.
SourceSynthetic demonstration data
07

Evidence gaps

Sub-floor monitoring across at least one rainfall event. Inspection and flow testing of the perimeter agricultural drain. Levels survey of the southern elevation to establish surface fall away from the dwelling.
08

Recommended next actions

None. The source has been rectified and independently verified.
Resolve as part of the sub-floor investigation. Do not treat the May completion record as covering the sub-floor area.
Commission a sub-floor drainage investigation. No remediation should be scheduled for this area until the mechanism is established.
Derived from the evidence and from what is missing from it — determined before, and independently of, who might carry the work out.
09

Building and property context

Property type
House
Construction
Brick veneer, timber frame, concrete slab on ground
Approximate build year
2004
Climate zone
Zone 5
Cladding / wall system
Brick veneer to original dwelling; fibre cement sheet to 2019 rear extension
Drained / ventilated cavity
Present — Reported
SourceSynthetic demonstration data — no building plan, survey or government source informed these values.

This is what a real record looks like.

Start with an address and see what EPIP can already assemble for it.

Request an assessment
See the assessment report format · Products