By Dr Danilo Gomes, technical sales & specification manager at URSA Insulation

As the construction industry moves towards a more evidence-led approach to specification, Dr Danilo Gomes of URSA Insulation explores why product performance and the evidence supporting it can no longer be treated separately – and what this means for architects.

Technical performance has always been central to specification. However, a performance claim is only as valuable as the evidence that supports it. Increasingly, architects need to understand not only what performance a product claims to deliver, but how that performance has been proved, under what conditions and whether the evidence is relevant to the intended application.

This is becoming especially important as expectations and responsibilities around construction product information increase. The Building Safety Act and Gateway regime have brought greater scrutiny to how project information is created, presented and maintained, while the Golden Thread reinforces the need for relevant building and product information to remain accessible from design and construction through to occupation.

While clients, principal designers and principal contractors are responsible for managing project information, manufacturers have an important role in providing information that is accurate, understandable and capable of supporting those using it throughout the building lifecycle.

Beyond the Datasheet

Technical information on construction products has always supported architectural decision-making. 

However, the quality and accessibility of this information are coming under increasing scrutiny. For example, a product’s declared thermal conductivity or reaction-to-fire classification is most valid where there is clarity around how that performance has been tested, verified and applied to the product’s intended use. Relevant testing, certification and other supporting evidence can help demonstrate the basis for the performance being claimed.

This is why product performance and the information supporting it need to be considered together. Project teams need information that provides evidence of design compliance with the building regulations, can be understood by different stakeholders and remains accessible throughout the project lifecycle.

The wider construction products reform agenda is reinforcing this shift. The Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) has encouraged greater consistency and clarity in how technical and marketing information is communicated, with an emphasis on information being clear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous.

The Construction Products Reform White Paper, published in February 2026, also sets out a broader direction for the sector, including proposals relating to product information, testing, certification and the type of evidence used to support performance claims. 

Understanding Performance in Context

For manufacturers, this means thinking beyond the individual product datasheet.

Robust evidence is not simply a larger collection of technical documents. It needs to help project teams understand what a product is, where and how it is intended to be used, what evidence supports the performance being claimed, and the conditions under which that performance applies.

This context matters because product performance cannot always be considered in isolation.

Take insulation within a façade or wall build-up. Its thermal performance characteristics may be clearly defined, but understanding the performance of the wider assembly also requires consideration of how its components interact and the conditions under which they are being used.

The value of construction product information, therefore, is not simply in providing performance figures for a singular product. It is in providing an understanding of how the product performance is achieved and the evidence behind that, which ultimately provides an insight into the application in which the product should be used.

That is particularly important when products are changed during a project. If a solution is substituted through late-stage value engineering, the evidence supporting the revised product or build-up may need to be reviewed to demonstrate that it still meets the required performance criteria as a complete system.

Collaboration is key 

Architects and contractors work across a wide range of building types, systems and products. It is not realistic to expect project teams to navigate increasingly complex requirements alone without clear, accessible and reliable information to support decision-making. 

Manufacturers, meanwhile, are deeply involved in developing their own products and their suitability to a range of applications. They can therefore play an important role in helping project teams understand where products are appropriate, what evidence supports their performance and how they interact with other components of a system’s design.

This makes early engagement with manufacturers’ technical teams increasingly valuable.

Digital specification platforms such as NBS Source can also make product information more structured and accessible. But accessibility alone is not enough. Information needs to be reliable, clear and relevant to the application, giving architects and specifiers the confidence to compare products and make informed decisions based on robust evidence. 

Evidence-Led Approach to Specification 

Ultimately, demonstrated performance remains fundamental. But confidence in that performance increasingly depends on evidence that is robust, accessible and relevant to its intended application.

The shift in approach, therefore, is towards a more evidence-led practice. For architects, that means identifying not only what performance is being claimed, but what evidence supports it, under what conditions and whether it is relevant to the building system being designed.

For manufacturers, it means making that evidence clear, accessible and relevant early enough to inform technical specification decisions. The strongest product evidence should not be something project teams have to retrieve after a decision has been made. It should be part of the decision-making process itself – giving architects the confidence to specify based on evidence, not simply claims.