In the solar energy industry we often want to estimate the expected energy output of a PV system. This calculation requires 2 sets of inputs. First are various physical and electrical characteristics of the PV system in question, such as solar module pitch, orientation and nominal power. The second is solar irradiance data at the PV system's location. Based on these inputs a model can calculate an expected energy output.
The lifecycle of a PV system can be divided into pre-installation and post-installation. Pre-installation the system only exists as a design on the drawing board. During this phase, we want to predict the energy output of the proposed PV system. At this point, the inputs are approximate; the PV system characteristics are planned, not physically real yet (e.g. circumstances may require the installer to place the modules at a different angle than planned), and solar irradiance data are historical averages (e.g. in the last 10 years, the average radiation incident in June was 200 W/m²). We're assuming that the historical average is a good basis for prediction. The outcome of this calculation we call predicted energy output.
Now let's say the PV system has been installed 1 month ago. We could re-do the expected energy output calculation, but now with actual inputs; we know exactly how the modules are installed and we know exactly how much solar irradiance the location received since the installation. The outcome of this calculation represents how much this PV system should have generated in normal operating conditions, given the solar irradiance actually received there. If this outcome is significantly higher than the actual kWh energy output, which is measured independently, that would indicate a technical failure of some kind (e.g. a faulty inverter).
So fundamentally there's very little difference between the two uses of the same model (pre- and post-installation), it's just that the inputs for the second describe reality better. I'm looking for adjectives to distinguish the two. I like the term predicted energy output for the pre-installation calculation, but what adjective could be used to describe the energy output from the post-installation calculation?
Expected is too ambiguous. Inferred suggests a tentative conclusion reasoned from evidence, but sounds like a bit of a stretch here. Simulated sounds better but could just as well be used to describe the pre-installation calculation. Normal, perhaps? What are your suggestions?