Methodology

Short version: this site reports what manufacturers published, cites where it read each figure, and says so plainly when nobody published anything. It never tells you a combination is safe.

Why the wording is careful

Getting a component pairing wrong in this hobby destroys equipment that costs thousands of dollars, and in the worst cases it starts a fire. A website has no way to know your wire runs, your ambient temperature, your load profile, or whether the unit in front of you is running the same firmware as the one in the manual.

So the language here is deliberately limited. These words never appear as a verdict anywhere on this site: safe, approved, certified, guaranteed, recommended, compatible. The word compatible is on that list because it reads as a blessing, and this site is not in a position to give one. It appears only inside an attributed statement, as in a manufacturer listing another unit by name.

The three results

Every checked field found published figures that agree. This is a statement about paperwork, not an endorsement of your installation.

At least one published figure contradicts another, or a required capability is absent from the hardware. Some conflicts are fixable in settings, and where that is true the result says which setting and what figure to use.

The figures that exist agree, and at least one field has no manufacturer statement behind it. This is the most common result and the one nobody else publishes. Every unverified field carries an instruction to confirm with the manufacturer, because that is genuinely the only way to close the gap.

Worst case wins

An overall result is never averaged. One conflict makes the whole pairing a conflict. Absent any conflict, one unverified field makes the pairing unverified. Only a clean sweep produces a match.

The ordering is deliberate. A rollup that could promote a pairing to acceptable because three fields out of four passed would be the single most dangerous thing this site could do.

Why every field carries its own citation

A datasheet gets revised without a changelog. A battery’s surge rating can change between revision 2 and revision 3 of the same document while the voltage window stays exactly where it was. If a citation covered a whole component record, one stale figure would quietly poison the rest and there would be no way to tell which one.

So each figure records the source filename, the page, the revision as printed, and the date it was retrieved. If you disagree with a number, you can go read the same page.

What an empty field means

A missing figure is a fact about the manufacturer, not a hole in this database, so it is recorded with a reason rather than left blank.

No document. No datasheet or manual could be found for this component.

Not stated. The document exists and simply does not give this figure. Growatt’s SPF terminal torque is a good example.

Conflicting sources. Two manufacturer documents give different figures, usually across revisions. This is reported as its own state rather than resolved, because picking a winner would mean guessing.

There is also a distinction that matters more than it looks. A component with no communication port is different from a component whose protocol was never published. The first is a definite limitation and gets reported as a conflict. The second is unknown and gets reported as unverified. Collapsing the two would let a known limitation hide behind the softer word.

What this site will never do

It will not infer a figure from a similar model in the same product line, even when the numbers are almost certainly identical.

It will not average or reconcile two conflicting manufacturer documents.

It will not fill a gap from a forum post, a retailer product page, or a video teardown. Those are excellent for finding out what people need answered and unusable as citations. Forum threads are where the questions on this site come from. They are never where the answers come from.

It will not generate a compatibility verdict with a language model. The checks are arithmetic against published numbers. Putting a model in that loop would turn a citable reference into a liability.

Corrections

If a figure here disagrees with a document you are holding, send it to info@solarspecdb.com with the revision date and the page. Corrections are the maintenance model for a site like this, not an inconvenience, because revisions ship quietly and a spec reference that never updates becomes wrong on a schedule.

Specifications currently shown across this site are example data for layout review unless a field is explicitly marked as read from a document.