Data coverage
Which reference journeys must the agreed dataset support? Missing cases are explained individually.
Pilot report · illustrative example
Sample report: Wien–Graz
Example question: Which missing information becomes visible when reviewing reference journeys on Vienna–Graz?
Sample data · illustrative · not pilot results
Report structure with three invented reference cases. Not a timetable, an assessment of a real operator or a measured emissions reduction.
01 · Scope
Prepare a decision.
Corridor: Wien–Graz. This example shows how a team could evaluate planning data and emissions comparisons for a limited application.
Before work starts, reference journeys, source versions, usage rights, test participants and acceptance thresholds are agreed in writing. This example does not set targets for your pilot.
02 · Sample extract
Make data gaps visible.
| Case | Review scenario | Classification | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | Connection with complete stops and times | Reviewable | Compare the source, retrieval time and reference timetable. |
| R-02 | Interchange without a documented minimum transfer time | Data gap | Add station data; do not describe the connection as assured. |
| R-03 | Emissions comparison using an annual country factor | Model assumption | Show the factor, accounting boundary and uncertainty with the result. |
03 · Acceptance
Agree first. Evaluate afterwards.
Traceability
Can reviewers identify the source, date, activity unit and assumptions for each comparison?
Comprehension
Can test participants distinguish a connection, interchange and uncertainty without further explanation?
Operational handover
Are unresolved issues, data rights, responsibilities and follow-on effort documented?
The decision report separates observed test results, model assumptions and unresolved issues. Continue, extend or stop are all possible outcomes; production readiness and environmental impact require separate evidence.
Discuss your use case →