Stress-Protocol Comparability and Degradation Attribution in Perovskite Solar Cells
A completed physics study comparing perovskite solar-cell stability protocols while keeping stress definition, operating point, recovery, diagnostics, replication and module relevance visible.

Software compatibility
The released results use the frozen 30 August 2026 evidence catalogue, pinned Python packages, 20,000 uncertainty draws per protocol, and random seed 20260830. New evidence or changed positions require a fresh validation run.
Project definition
Problem statement
Perovskite stability results are difficult to compare when studies use different environments, temperatures, spectra, circuit conditions, encapsulation, baselines, recovery intervals and lifetime metrics.
The physics problem is to determine when two stress tests support a valid comparison and when a performance loss can be attributed to a bounded degradation mechanism.
Project objectives
- Compare ten perovskite stability protocol archetypes across eight degradation mechanisms.
- Apply hard gates for stress definition, reporting completeness, stabilized performance and mechanism applicability.
- Separate reversible performance change from irreversible degradation.
- Map thirteen validation criteria across eleven experimental stages.
- Quantify evidence-position uncertainty with 20,000 fixed-seed draws per protocol.
- Retain complete results, figures, tests, references and editable documentation.
Project structure
Project components
Protocol register
Compares dark storage, damp heat, continuous light, MPP operation, light-dark cycling, electrical bias, thermal cycling, outdoor exposure and combined stress.
Mechanism map
Links moisture, oxygen, heat, ion migration, phase segregation, interfaces, bias and thermomechanical failure to relevant tests.
Comparability model
Scores twelve experimental-design dimensions and rejects unsupported comparisons through hard gates.
Attribution model
Keeps recovery measurement, diagnostic evidence, alternative explanations and reversible-loss confounding visible.
Workflow FMEA
Ranks 143 stage-criterion combinations from protocol selection and calibration through diagnostics and cross-study comparison.
Verification pipeline
Regenerates the study, tests the model, validates the documents and reproduces the analysis in Docker.
Methodology
Project workflow
- 01Define the claim
Specify device population, use context, relevant failure mode and permitted conclusion.
- 02Calibrate the stress
Record chamber conditions, device temperature, spectrum, irradiance, atmosphere and electrical operation.
- 03Track stabilized output
Retain MPP behaviour, current-voltage components, interruptions, baseline and censoring.
- 04Measure recovery and diagnostics
Separate reversible change and test structural, chemical, optical and electrical mechanism evidence.
- 05Review transfer
Inspect context, module relevance, uncertainty and outdoor correlation before making a lifetime claim.
Demonstration scenario
The retained analysis shows why controlled MPP light soaking, light-dark cycling, combined stress and outdoor exposure answer different questions. A long dark-storage test cannot override weak operational relevance, and a falling efficiency trace cannot by itself prove ion migration or irreversible degradation.
Engineering
Tools and method
- Tools
- The project uses Python 3.12, NumPy, pandas, Matplotlib for subject analysis, simulation, and results.
- Declared inputs
- Python data structures retain every protocol position, mechanism link, evidence case and decision boundary.
- Deterministic analysis
- NumPy and pandas generate all 1,280 protocol, mechanism, context and evidence cases.
- Risk analysis
- Validation criteria, reporting crosswalk and FMEA expose calibration, tracking, recovery, diagnostic and comparison risks.
- Uncertainty
- Fixed-seed Monte Carlo and one-factor sensitivity test stability of the declared evidence positions.
- Evidence
- CSV, JSON, PNG, PDF and Word files retain the complete analysis, source catalogue and report.
- Release verification
- Tests, linting, vulnerability audit, document QA, repository validation and Docker verify the handover.
Testing
Evaluation
Evaluation measures
- Comparability score and hard-gate result by protocol and mechanism
- Stress, environment, temperature, illumination and electrical-operation quality
- Stabilized output, time-series, recovery, diagnostics and replication positions
- Severity-weighted validation gaps and workflow FMEA priorities
- Reporting crosswalk and assessment-context reversals
- Monte Carlo intervals and evidence-position sensitivity
Project boundaries
- All numerical inputs are literature-informed evidence positions rather than measurements from a common experiment.
- The study does not predict device or module lifetime and does not establish an acceleration factor.
- It does not prove a unique degradation mechanism or certify a material, cell, module or product.
- It does not replace IEC qualification, outdoor correlation, calibrated testing or warranty evidence.
- A real programme requires matched device populations, controlled stresses, recovery measurements, diagnostics and independent review.
Included
- 01Complete Python source and declared study configuration
- 021,280 protocol, mechanism, assessment-context and evidence cases
- 03Ten stress protocols and eight degradation mechanisms
- 04Thirteen validation criteria and a 143-cell workflow FMEA
- 05Twelve generated figures and one attributed CC BY 4.0 literature figure
- 0677-page project report in PDF and editable Word formats
- 0715-page project and defence guide in PDF and editable Word formats
- 08Fifty annotated references with evidence boundaries and source matrix
- 09Automated tests, repository validation and Docker reproduction
Project record
No information is collected on this page.
- Permanent project ID
- GP-PH-10VLDXA
- Catalogued
- 21 Aug 2026
- Completed
- 30 Aug 2026
- Verified
- 30 Aug 2026
- Demonstration
- Included in repository
Handover
After purchase
- 01Payment is confirmed
The project is marked unavailable and cannot be purchased again.
- 02Repository access is granted
The buyer's submitted GitHub account receives access to the private repository.
- 03The purchase record is delivered
The certification sheet is prepared from the reviewed buyer details and sent privately by email.