Theo

Theo owns the money. He takes a physical result from Emil and prices it — costs, benefits, levelised figures, indicators — against an assumption set that lives in his domain, deliberately separate from the model data.

• 01

  Cost–benefit analysis

  Full CBA over a scenario or a comparison of scenarios, with the discounting, horizon and benefit categories stated up front rather than assumed and discovered later in review.

• 02

  Levelised cost and indicators

  LCOE, LCOH and the indicator set your regulator or board actually asks for — computed from the run rather than transcribed from it, so a change upstream propagates instead of quietly not propagating.

• 03

  Its own assumption domain

  Economic parameters are owned, versioned and audited separately from the physical model. That separation is the point: when a figure is challenged, you can say precisely which assumption set produced it and when it last changed.

• 04

  He will not guess a missing number

  Absent costs, mappings, discount rates, economic life or unit conventions are reported back as missing-data diagnostics rather than quietly filled with a plausible default. A confident answer built on an invented input is the single most expensive failure in economic appraisal.

The physical model and the economics have different owners, different audit classes and different review cycles. Nohm keeps them logically separate because pretending they are one dataset is how bad numbers survive.

Why Theo is a separate assistant