Use Watt Efficiency Prover with your AI.

Validate watt efficiency

You must: (1) MEASURE. energy in vs. work out, precise input/output ratio, not "should be faster," (2) IDENTIFY WASTE. where resources are consumed without producing value, (3) QUANTIFY COST OF CHANGE. investment, downtime, transition risk, training, disruption, (4) PROVE GAINS. before/after measurements with the same methodology, (5) PRESERVE OUTPUT. efficiency must not degrade quality, safety, or reliability. If rejected, fix the specific efficiency gap the engine identifies. Structured reflection capability that forces the LLM to think like James Watt. measure resource efficiency with precision, identify waste in every process, quantify the cost of change versus the cost of status quo, prove efficiency gains with measured before/after data, and preserve output quality during optimization. Watt did not invent the steam engine. he measured why Newcomen's engine wasted 75% of its heat, then engineered a separate condenser that recovered that energy. The breakthrough was not invention. it was measurement. Catches Efficiency Unmeasured (claiming improvement without measuring input/output ratio. a textile mill in 1780: "Our new steam engine is better than the old one." Better how? "It feels more powerful." Watt's approach: measure coal consumed (input) per bales of cotton processed (output). Old engine: 12 lbs of coal per bale. New engine: 4.5 lbs per bale. That is a 62.5% efficiency gain. measured, not felt. Without measurement: the mill owner cannot know if the £400 investment was justified. Modern equivalent: a hospital claims "our new scheduling system is more efficient." Efficient how? How many patients per hour before? After? What changed? Rule: state the precise input/output ratio before AND after. "$47 per unit produced" or "2.3 hours per case resolved". not "faster" or "better"), Waste Unidentified (optimizing the wrong thing because waste was never mapped. a hospital operating room: surgeons complain about long turnover times between surgeries. Administration buys faster sterilization equipment. $120,000. Turnover time: unchanged. Why? Because 70% of turnover time was NOT sterilization. It was: waiting for the next patient to arrive from pre-op (18 minutes). Surgeon doing pre-op paperwork that a nurse could complete (12 minutes). Anesthesiologist arriving late because they were checking another patient (15 minutes). The sterilization was 8 minutes. It was never the bottleneck. $120,000 spent. Problem unchanged. Because no one MAPPED where time was actually lost. Watt's waste taxonomy: WAIT (idle time. materials, people, decisions queued). DUPLICATION (same work done twice. same data in 3 systems). OVERPRODUCTION (more than needed. reports nobody reads, inventory above demand). DEFECTS (rework. returns, corrections, failed inspections). Map ALL four before optimizing ANY one), Change Cost Unknown (implementing improvement without calculating total cost of transition. a bakery owner: "A new convection oven will bake croissants 30% faster!" Cost: $40,000. Current oven bakes 200 croissants/hour. New oven: 260/hour. Croissant profit margin: $0.85 each. Extra 60 croissants/hour × $0.85 = $51/hour. Bakery operates 8 hours/day, 25 days/month = $10,200/month extra revenue. But wait. can the bakery SELL 60 extra croissants/hour? Current demand: 180/hour. The oven already exceeds demand. The new oven bakes 260 for a market of 180. The $40,000 oven produces unsold croissants. ROI: never. The bottleneck was demand, not baking speed. Rule: quantify investment, downtime during transition, risk if it fails, AND verify the bottleneck is what you think it is), Improvement Unproven (claiming gains without before/after measurement with identical methodology. a factory manager: "Since the new layout, production is up 20%!" Measured how? "July output was 12,000 units. December output is 14,400 units." But July had 3 weeks of vacation absences. December is peak season with overtime. Same methodology? No. Same conditions? No. The "improvement" is seasonal variation, not layout effect. Watt's method: measure coal per horsepower-hour. Same fuel. Same engine. Same load. Before condenser: 30 lbs/hp-hr. After: 7.5 lbs/hp-hr. Same conditions. Single change. Rule: before/after must use identical methodology, identical conditions, and single change. if you changed 5 things simultaneously, you cannot attribute the result to any one), and Output Degraded (improving efficiency at the expense of quality, safety, or reliability. a clinic reduces appointment times from 12 minutes to 8 minutes. Efficiency: patients per hour increases from 5 to 7.5. a 50% improvement! But: misdiagnosis rate doubles. Patient satisfaction drops from 4.2/5 to 2.8/5. Complaints to the medical board: 3 per quarter → 11 per quarter. The clinic is "more efficient" at producing worse outcomes. Watt's separate condenser improved BOTH efficiency AND output stability. the engine ran smoother AND used less coal. Efficiency that degrades output is not optimization. it is cutting corners. Rule: measure quality metrics before and after. If quality dropped: the "efficiency" is fake). Call once per optimization, cost-reduction, or process improvement proposal