ISO/CIE 8995-1:2025 puts melanopic EDI into workplace lighting. What its public record shows, what it does not, and the data to demand from suppliers.
The 2025 edition of the indoor workplace lighting standard contains a clause titled "ipRGC-influenced responses to light – Melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance", and it adds an informative annex on non-visual effects. That is the change. It does not mean the standard now hands you a melanopic limit to build to: the numeric consensus it points at — melanopic EDI of at least 250 lx at the eye during the day, no more than 10 lx in the three hours before sleep, no more than 1 lx during sleep — comes from the CIE, and the SLL states that the standard acknowledges that consensus as the best available science at the time of publication. This article separates what the public record of the standard actually shows from what trade summaries claim, gives the provenance chain behind the three numbers, explains the three ways the 250 lx figure gets misread, and ends with the six items of data a supplier should be made to put in writing before a project uses the word "integrative".
Terms and units used below. Melanopic EDI (melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance) = the D65 illuminance that produces the same melanopic stimulus as the light being measured, in lux; defined in CIE S 026:2018. ipRGC = intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell, the third class of retinal photoreceptor, which signals light to the circadian system rather than forming images. α-opic DER = the ratio quantities CIE S 026 uses to describe how strongly a spectrum stimulates each of the five photoreceptor classes. M/P ratio = melanopic-to-photopic ratio, the shorthand SUMLINK publishes for how much melanopic stimulus a source delivers per unit of visual brightness. CCT = correlated colour temperature, in kelvin. TLM = temporal light modulation, the standard's own term for flicker and stroboscopic effects. SLL = Society of Light and Lighting (CIBSE). CIE = International Commission on Illumination. lx = lux. An informative annex supplies information and does not carry requirements; a normative reference is a document whose content is required to apply the standard. Those two words are the hinge on which most of this article turns.
Start with the foreword, because it is short, public, and settles several arguments.
The foreword states that the document "was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 274, Light and lighting, in cooperation with the International Commission on Illumination (CIE)", and that "This first edition of ISO/CIE 8995-1 cancels and replaces ISO 8995-1:2002, which has been technically revised". The main changes are then given as a four-item list: prior document reference numbers "replaced with a combined reference number, ISO/CIE 8995-1"; "scope revised"; "Annex A, Annex B, Annex C and Annex D added"; and "editorially updated".
That is a modest list for a document that the trade has started to describe as a revolution. Read it literally and notice what is not claimed: there is no statement that the illuminance tables were recast, no statement that a new metric became a pass/fail criterion, and no statement that the standard now sets health outcomes. What the foreword says is that the two bodies merged their reference numbers into one joint standard, revised the scope, and added four annexes.
The catalogue record fills in the administrative detail: released 31 January 2025, 109 pages, English, classified under ICS 13.180 (ergonomics) and 91.160.10 (interior lighting), developed in ISO/TC 274/JWG 5 — a joint working group with CIE-JTC 15 — and linked to the two editions it replaces, ISO 8995-1:2002 and ISO 8995-1:2002/Cor 1:2005.
The scope revision is where the substantive change begins, and it is one sentence long. After restating the visual requirements and the daylight-or-electric wording, the scope adds: "This document gives recommendations for good lighting to fulfil the needs of integrative lighting."
One sentence. Not a limit, not a table, not a test method. It sets the intent of the document, and everything the standard subsequently does about non-visual effects hangs off that sentence. The scope is also explicit about two boundaries that matter commercially: the standard "neither provides specific solutions nor recommendations for atmosphere or aesthetics created by lighting", and it "is not applicable for emergency lighting" (ISO 30061 covers that).
A note on the EN 12464-1 question. Practitioners in Hong Kong and the UK will ask whether ISO/CIE 8995-1:2025 and EN 12464-1:2021 are now the same document. We have not read EN 12464-1:2021 for this article, and the ISO preview does not mention it, so we make no claim either way. What we can state is narrower: the 2025 edition is a joint ISO/CIE product that supersedes ISO 8995-1:2002, and anyone specifying for a project under a European national annex should confirm the applicable national text rather than assume the two are interchangeable. That comparison is 未驗證 here.
The table of contents is the second public artefact worth reading closely. Between "5.3 Illuminance" and "5.5 Illuminance grid", it lists:
5.4 ipRGC-influenced responses to light – Melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance
That is the whole of what the public record tells us about the clause — its title and its position. It sits inside Clause 5, the part of the document that carries lighting criteria: luminance distribution, illuminance, uniformity, glare, the appearance of objects and people, colour, temporal light modulation, and work stations with display screen equipment. Placing melanopic EDI there is the observable that matters. The metric is no longer an appendix curiosity; it is a criterion listed alongside the ones a lighting designer already computes.
The annexes add three more pieces:
All four are marked informative. That single word decides how the document can be used in a contract. An informative annex explains, illustrates or advises; it does not create a conformity requirement. A specifier who writes "Annex B compliance" into a specification has written something the standard does not offer — the phrase is ours, not the document's, and it names no test. What Annex B can properly be used for is agreement on the information a project should collect — which is the practical use this article ends with.
Two further entries in the standard's own apparatus confirm the direction rather than a number. CIE S 026 — CIE System for Metrology of Optical Radiation for ipRGC-Influenced Responses to Light — appears in Clause 2, the normative references, so measuring and stating melanopic quantities is part of applying the document properly. And the bibliography lists ISO/CIE TR 21783, Light and lighting — Integrative lighting — Non-visual effects, which is where a reader is sent for the applied guidance. A technical report in the bibliography is a pointer, not a requirement.
The honest summary of the public record is therefore narrow and useful:
| Question | What the public record shows | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Does the standard name melanopic EDI? | Yes — Clause 5.4, and CIE S 026 as a normative reference | Verified from the preview |
| Does the standard add information on non-visual effects? | Yes — Annex B, marked informative | Verified from the preview |
| Does the public record state a melanopic EDI limit for compliance? | No numeric limit appears in the preview, and Annex B is informative; the clause body is not in the public preview | 未驗證 — the clause body was not read |
| Where do the 250 / 10 / 1 lx figures come from? | The CIE consensus the standard acknowledges: Brown et al. (2022) → CIE TN 015:2023 → CIE PS 001:2024 | Verified from the SLL statement |
Which brings us to the sentence that carries the most weight in the whole public record, from the SLL's August 2026 position statement:
The revised international workplace-lighting standard ISO/CIE 8995-1:2025 incorporates considerations relating to the non-visual effects of ocular light exposure, including ipRGC-influenced responses to light. While recognising that evidence continues to evolve, the standard acknowledges the recommendations of Brown et al. (2022) as the best available scientific consensus at the time of publication.
Three things follow. The standard incorporates the considerations. The standard acknowledges the consensus. The acknowledgement is time-stamped — "at the time of publication" — which is an invitation to check the science again rather than treat the numbers as settled forever.
Buyers reasonably assume that a number in a standard was set by the standards body. For melanopic exposure, the number came from a scientific consensus process, and the 2025 standard acknowledges that process rather than setting a number of its own. The sequence below is what separates an acknowledgement from a normative limit.
The SLL records the sequence. In August 2019, an independent workshop of 18 leading scientists — the statement calls it "Manchester II" — translated current knowledge into practical guidance for healthy daily light exposure. The outcome, published by Brown et al. (2022) and based on a meta-analysis of 19 peer-reviewed studies (Brown, 2020), is described by the SLL as the first international consensus recommendations for a healthy pattern of day, evening and night light exposure. Those recommendations were documented in CIE TN 015:2023 and endorsed in CIE PS 001:2024, the third edition of the CIE position statement, published in August 2024.
The table itself is three rows:
| Period | Melanopic EDI target (vertical at eye level) | Purpose as stated |
|---|---|---|
| Daytime (continuous) | ≥ 250 lx | Supports alertness, circadian entrainment and good night-time sleep |
| Evening (3 hours before sleep) | ≤ 10 lx | Facilitates sleep initiation and consolidation, prevents shifting the biological clock, limits melatonin suppression |
| Night (during sleep) | ≤ 1 lx (target: as close to 0 as possible) | Supports strong circadian rhythm and sleep quality; if more detailed visual tasks are required at night, melanopic EDI ≤ 10 lx is recommended |
Source: Brown et al. (2022); adopted in CIE TN 015:2023 and endorsed in CIE PS 001:2024, as tabulated in the SLL position statement.
Read the qualifiers in the left-hand column. "Daytime (continuous)" is the one that hurts, because a workplace rarely delivers a continuous condition by accident. And read the population scope, which the SLL states plainly: these recommendations "apply to healthy young-to-middle-aged adults", while applicability "to younger and older populations, to those with visual or medical conditions, and to shift workers requires further study, as identified in CIE PS 001:2024".
That scope statement has a direct commercial consequence. A scheme sold on the promise that it helps shift workers sleep better is claiming something the consensus document explicitly leaves open. A scheme specified to deliver a continuous daytime melanopic condition, and separately to keep evening exposure low, is claiming something the consensus document supports — and is claiming it about the pattern of exposure, which is the only thing lighting can control.
The CIE's own vocabulary is worth adopting for the same reason. The SLL notes that the CIE defines integrative lighting in CIE S 017:2020 as lighting that integrates visual and non-visual effects, and records the trade vocabulary plainly: "The earlier terms 'circadian lighting,' 'human-centric lighting' and 'biodynamic lighting' are used interchangeably in the industry but are not formally adopted by the CIE." That is a plain statement that the trade vocabulary, including the term this company has used for its own product line, is not standards language. Using it is not dishonest; presenting it as a defined metric is.
The number travels faster than its conditions. Three misreadings account for most of the confusion in tender documents, and each one is corrected in a primary source.
Misreading one: treating 250 lx as a dose. If a supplier offers 250 lx melanopic EDI for one hour each morning, that is a different claim from the consensus. The SLL is explicit: "The daytime recommendation of melanopic EDI ≥ 250 lx should not be treated as a brief daily dose unless that interpretation is explicitly justified by evidence." It goes further, noting that from the Brown et al. evidence review "it is not clear how to apply this fixed threshold for a variable melanopic EDI profile that crosses the 250 lx mark", and that "It is potentially a misinterpretation that a short period of high melanopic exposure would compensate for otherwise dim daytime conditions." The SLL's own position bullet reads: "Treat melanopic EDI ≥ 250 lx as a minimal daytime exposure condition, not a brief dose."
In the same document the SLL lists the open question as a research priority: whether cumulative melanopic lux-hours can substitute for a sustained condition. Until that is answered, a specification should describe a daytime condition to be held "as consistently as reasonably practicable during occupied daytime periods, with particular emphasis on the morning and earlier part of the day".
Misreading two: treating colour temperature as the metric. A specification written as 4000 K for daytime activation and 2700 K for evening has not specified melanopic exposure, and the CIE says so directly. The SLL reports that "The CIE explicitly cautions that it is unhelpful, and potentially misleading, to use correlated colour temperature (CCT) to specify a 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' light source (CIE PS 001:2024)", and explains why: the melanopic stimulus "depends on the relative spectral power distribution and luminous stimulus combined", so that "two light sources with the same CCT and illuminance can differ substantially in their melanopic EDI".
For a project this is not academic. Two luminaires both quoted at 4000 K and both delivering 500 lx on the desk can sit on opposite sides of a meaningful melanopic difference, and the CCT figure on the datasheet cannot distinguish them. Only the spectrum — or a quantity derived from it, such as the α-opic DER values in CIE S 026 or the M/P ratio — can.
Misreading three: measuring on the work plane. Conventional illuminance is a horizontal-plane quantity. Melanopic EDI as the CIE defines it is an eye-plane quantity, and the SLL states the difference without hedging: light exposure "should be assessed at the plane of the observer's eye", typically approximately vertical and facing the direction of gaze, rather than on the horizontal working plane, with a fuller characterisation including horizontal illuminance, luminance distributions and colour quality indices per CIE TN 011:2020.
The practical effect is large and easy to underestimate. A desk-level lux meter and an eye-level vertical measurement of the same room are measuring different things, and a room can pass a horizontal illuminance target while leaving the occupant in a dim vertical field. That is one reason the standard's Clause 7 tables cannot be read as a melanopic specification even if they are met in full. See Human-centric lighting science: ipRGCs, m-EDI and CIE S 026.
Three published findings explain why the metric is hard to satisfy by adding light fittings.
What people actually receive. Zauner et al. (2026), a multi-country wearable preprint study reported by the SLL, found that participants achieved the daytime recommendation of Brown et al. (2022) "during only about 24% of waking observations", "while evening exposures often exceeded recommended levels". Average melanopic EDI was "approximately 75 lx under indoor electric lighting, 172 lx under indoor daylight, and more than 700 lx outdoors". The SLL draws the operational conclusion: these findings "underline the need to consider actual personal exposure at the eye, not design illuminance alone".
The ordering of those three numbers is the argument. Electric lighting is the weakest of the three sources by an order of magnitude against outdoor exposure, indoor daylight roughly doubles electric lighting and still falls short of 250 lx, and only outdoors clears the recommendation with margin. A building whose strategy is to install more electric light indoors is trying to close a gap that daylight closes more cheaply.
What daylight alone can do in a cloudy climate. Ticleanu et al. (2025), modelling UK office spaces, "found that achieving 250 lx melanopic EDI indoors from daylight alone can be difficult in predominantly cloudy climates, especially for occupants located away from windows or facing away from them". The same passage notes the trade-off: higher daylight provision improves the chance of meeting the recommendation, "but may also increase glare risk", which is why the balance has to include visual comfort, energy performance and occupant behaviour.
What happens when the objective is pursued by adding load. A systematic review of the energy impacts of integrative lighting (Taghizadeh et al., 2025) "found that poorly conceived schemes can increase energy consumption when non-visual objectives are addressed only by adding more electric light". The SLL's reading is that increased energy use "is not inevitable, but avoiding it requires daylight-led design, spectral optimisation and effective controls from the outset".
The SLL's strategy follows from those three findings and is worth quoting because it is the one statement in the document that reads like a design brief: "bright days, dark nights", with "Daylight should be the primary means of delivering daytime melanopic exposure wherever possible, with electric lighting used as a complementary tool when daylight is unavailable, insufficient or poorly distributed."
One further caution belongs here, from the SLL's use of Boyce's 2016 editorial: "the further the outcome is from the direct effects of lighting on human physiology, the more likely it is that factors other than lighting will intervene". Sleep quality and reported wellbeing sit far from the photoreceptor, and a lighting scheme that claims them has left the evidence behind.
The part of the 2025 edition with the most contractual weight is not Clause 5.4. It is Clause 8, the verification procedures clause, whose items the table of contents lists as: general, illuminances, unified glare rating, colour rendering and colour appearance, luminaire luminance, maintenance schedule, tolerances in measurements, and system tests. Annex D, commissioning, sits behind it as informative guidance.
Nothing in that list is new in kind, but read together with Clause 6 the structure describes a complete handover argument:
The SLL adds a caution that anyone writing a TLM clause should absorb: "Current product compliance requirements for temporal light modulation are assessed at full light output and do not characterise performance across the dimming range. As a result, compliance at rated output should not be assumed to indicate acceptable flicker performance under dimmed conditions." Where low-light operation matters, the statement points to "additional assessment methods, such as those described in IEC TR 61547-1:2020".
That caution bites twice for integrative lighting. A scheme that dims to reach a low evening melanopic level is operating the luminaire outside the condition its flicker compliance was tested in, and the dimmed state is exactly the state the occupants will sit in at 20:00.
If the standard gives a metric rather than a limit, the work moves to the specification, and the specification is only as good as the data behind it. Six requests cover the gaps this article has described. They are written as things to demand in writing, before a project adopts the words "integrative" or "circadian".
| # | Ask for | Why it closes a gap | What a useful answer looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spectral power distribution for each light engine, at each CCT the project will use, with the drive condition stated | CIE's caution that CCT alone can mislead has a direct consequence: two sources at the same CCT and illuminance "can differ substantially in their melanopic EDI" | A measured SPD per engine, plus the α-opic DER values derived from it (CIE S 026), not a nominal CCT |
| 2 | Melanopic EDI or M/P ratio per mode, and the photopic illuminance it is quoted at | Melanopic EDI depends on spectrum and on level. A bare CCT or a bare lux figure cannot be converted; a published M/P with the photopic lux at the same drive state can, provided both numbers share the spectrum, beam and measurement plane | A pair of numbers per mode, with the state they were taken in named — e.g. the photopic lux and the melanopic EDI at the eye plane — with the reference standard named |
| 3 | The measurement plane and geometry | The CIE's recommended assessment is at the eye plane, approximately vertical, facing the direction of gaze, not the horizontal work plane | A stated plane and direction, and the distance and mounting assumption used |
| 4 | Data across the dimming range, not only at full output | TLM compliance at rated output "should not be assumed to indicate acceptable flicker performance under dimmed conditions"; the evening condition is a dimmed condition | Flicker metrics at the minimum and at 10%, 50% and 100%, with the method named (IEC TR 61547-1:2020 is available for dimmed operation) |
| 5 | Commissioning and verification data at handover | Clause 8 expects measurement and system tests, and Annex D exists as commissioning guidance | Measured values at agreed points, against the project's stated tolerances, recorded — not a design calculation only |
| 6 | A statement of what the product is not | "No lighting product is intrinsically integrative, circadian or human-centric. These are not properties of the product itself, but of the pattern of light exposure it helps create" | Language that describes the exposure pattern the system can support, and makes no clinical or sleep-efficacy claim |
The order matters less than the habit: each request names the quantity, the condition and the method. A supplier who cannot state the condition has given you a marketing figure. See HCL specification library.
Hong Kong makes the argument sharper than most markets, and the reason is the building stock rather than the standard. Deep floor plates, fully glazed façades with the daylight concentrated along the perimeter, and air-conditioned interiors where the blinds stay shut are the condition we meet in the projects we quote for. That is a working assumption drawn from our own project experience, not a building-stock survey, and generalising it would need one. If it holds, the occupants most dependent on electric light for a daytime melanopic condition are the ones furthest from the glass — the same group the Ticleanu et al. modelling identifies as the hardest to serve from daylight.
A specification sequence that follows the standard and the consensus rather than a product claim looks like this.
Set the objective in the right quantity, in the right place. Write the target as a vertical eye-level melanopic quantity for occupied daytime hours, and separately as an evening condition. Do not write it as a CCT schedule — the CIE caution in §D.4 is enough to defeat that in a technical review, and correctly so. Carry two preconditions with the numbers: the consensus figures apply to healthy young-to-middle-aged adults, and the SLL records that applying them to other groups, shift workers included, needs further study; and the evening figure is defined relative to intended sleep, which is a personal schedule rather than a building schedule, so the control time must be agreed per tenant rather than assumed.
Do daylight first, and prove it before adding load. The SLL's position is daylight-first, electric-light-supported. In a deep plan that means a daylight assessment of the actual occupied zones, an honest statement of which zones daylight cannot reach, and electric lighting designed as the complement for those zones — which is also the energy finding, since "non-visual objectives are addressed only by adding more electric light" is the failure mode Taghizadeh et al. describe.
Use the spectrum as the design variable, and the level as the second variable. A tunable system that moves the spectrum across the day is the mechanism that makes a daytime condition and an evening condition compatible in one installation. That is a statement about spectral design and control, not about a health outcome — and it is testable at the datasheet level with requests 1 and 2 from §D.7.
Treat the evening condition as a commissioning item. The ≤ 10 lx evening recommendation is a low-output condition, and the SLL's TLM caution applies exactly there. Commissioning that checks only full output leaves the evening state unverified.
Record the measured result, at the eye plane. A record pack is our procurement requirement, not something the standard compels. Clause 8 sets out the verification structure and Annex D covers commissioning in title only; we have not read either clause body, so the pack below follows the SLL's measurement guidance and what a project can actually witness. A handover pack that contains horizontal illuminance only has not demonstrated anything about melanopic exposure.
Describe the exposure pattern, not a health outcome. This is the discipline the SLL spells out, and it is also the one that survives procurement review in this market, where a claim about staff sleep will be read as a claim about liability. See Why the M/P ratio matters.
Because this article argues for disciplined claims, the same standard has to be applied to our own pages.
Our HCL specification library leads with the parameters that drive selection — M/P ratio, flicker %, SVM, Δu′v′ — beside the standard photometric fields. The catalogue copy, as captured on 20 October 2026, also says: "SUMLINK Verified marks the SKUs we have tested ourselves." Two records have to be read together here. Our own specification guide states that the earlier SUMLINK Verified badge was removed because no measurement record stood behind it for the products in question, and that a measurement-status column replaces it; the catalogue sentence has survived that change. Neither statement establishes melanopic measurement provenance, and this article does not present either as one. On the M/P side, the published programme figures are ratios; a ratio tells you the melanopic-to-photopic relationship of the source, and it does not, on its own, tell you the eye-level melanopic EDI in a given room, because the level and the geometry still have to be measured. The distinction is the whole subject of §D.4 and we apply it to ourselves.
Our science page explains CIE S 026, m-EDI and M/P, and gives a time-of-day table. Three differences from the consensus source are recorded here rather than glossed over. The page describes the pre-sleep low-light condition as "the two hours before sleep onset", while the consensus recommendation is three hours. It frames the 250 lx figure as a morning target, while the consensus frames it as a continuous daytime condition. And its midday band, 100–250 m-EDI lx, sits below the daytime recommendation for part of the occupied day rather than at it. The first two change what a reader would do; the third understates the daytime condition. Correcting the page is a page task for the site owner, not something this article pretends has been done.
We also hold no laboratory report for melanopic EDI for any product in our HCL range: our product record marks those fields as open gaps rather than filling them. No independent melanopic measurement of a SUMLINK product is cited anywhere in this article, because we have none to cite. What we can do, and what §D.7 sets out, is supply the data a project needs to establish the condition with its own commissioning measurement.
The 2025 edition of ISO/CIE 8995-1 puts melanopic EDI into the workplace lighting standard — as a named criterion at 5.4, with CIE S 026 as a normative reference and an informative annex on non-visual effects — and points, in the SLL's words, at the Brown et al. (2022) consensus as the best available science at the time of publication. The numbers attached to that consensus are a continuous daytime condition of at least 250 lx melanopic EDI at the eye, no more than 10 lx in the three hours before sleep, and no more than 1 lx during sleep. The measured indoor reality is far below it: an average of 75 lx under indoor electric lighting and 172 lx under indoor daylight, in the preprint the SLL reports. Closing that gap is a daylight-and-spectrum problem before it is a wattage problem, it has to be specified in quantities measured at the eye plane, and it has to be verified at the dimmed state the evening actually uses. Ask your supplier for six things in writing, measure at the eye, and keep the claim to the exposure pattern — because that is the only thing the evidence supports, and it is enough.
Not in the public record. The 2025 edition names "ipRGC-influenced responses to light – Melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance" as clause 5.4, cites CIE S 026 as a normative reference, and adds Annex B on non-visual effects, which is marked informative. The 250 lx figure comes from the CIE consensus the standard acknowledges — Brown et al. (2022), documented in CIE TN 015:2023 and endorsed in CIE PS 001:2024 — not from a compliance limit in the standard's public text. The clause body itself was not read for this article, so we state what the record shows and mark the rest unverified.
Daytime, continuous: at least 250 lx at eye level. Evening, in the three hours before sleep: no more than 10 lx. During sleep: no more than 1 lx, with a target as close to 0 as possible, and no more than 10 lx where detailed visual tasks are unavoidable at night. Source: Brown et al. (2022), adopted in CIE TN 015:2023 and endorsed in CIE PS 001:2024, tabulated in the SLL position statement of August 2026.
No. The CIE explicitly cautions that it is unhelpful and potentially misleading to use correlated colour temperature to specify a "healthy" light source, because the melanopic stimulus depends on the spectral power distribution and the luminous stimulus together — two sources with the same CCT and illuminance can differ substantially in melanopic EDI. Ask for the spectrum, or for α-opic DER values or an M/P ratio derived from it.
At the eye. The CIE recommends assessing light exposure at the plane of the observer's eye, typically approximately vertical and facing the direction of gaze, not on the horizontal working plane, with CIE TN 011:2020 cited for the fuller characterisation. A room can meet a horizontal illuminance target and still leave its occupants in a dim vertical field.
No. The SLL states that the daytime recommendation should not be treated as a brief daily dose unless that interpretation is explicitly justified by evidence, and that a short period of high melanopic exposure is potentially a misinterpretation as compensation for an otherwise dim day. Its position is to treat melanopic EDI of at least 250 lx as a minimal daytime exposure condition, held as consistently as reasonably practicable, with particular emphasis on the morning.
Six things: spectral power distribution per engine at each CCT used; melanopic EDI or M/P ratio per mode with the photopic illuminance it is quoted at; the measurement plane and geometry; flicker data across the dimming range, not only at full output; commissioning and verification measurements at handover; and a statement of what the product is not, since no lighting product is intrinsically integrative, circadian or human-centric.
The HCL specification library publishes the fields this article asks for at the datasheet level — M/P ratio, flicker %, SVM and Δu′v′ — and the sheets carry their own labels. Request BOM & Spec Sheets →