What the evidence showed
One room cannot stand in for the home.
The cooler room had the higher average relative humidity. The warmer room also had raised moisture findings. These poor conditions warranted review; the readings did not establish the cause.
The room comparison
A clearer view of the difference.
Rounded hourly means and sampled peaks—not continuous measurement.
Room A
- Mean temperature
- 19°C
- Mean relative humidity
- 76%
- Sampled humidity peak
- 81%
Room B
- Mean temperature
- 23°C
- Mean relative humidity
- 68%
- Sampled humidity peak
- 83%
Values are rounded to whole units. Means are arithmetic averages of available hourly aggregates, not time-weighted exposure. Sampled peaks do not show how long a condition lasted.
A separate finding
Ventilation also needed review.
One sampled CO₂ peak was approximately 2,900 ppm. It adds a separate ventilation question, not an explanation for the moisture findings.
A sampled peak alone does not establish duration, occupancy, behaviour or cause; it is not a safety assessment.
What to do with the evidence
Turn a finding into a better next question.
Recommendations—not a record of completed works.
Review provision
Check extraction, heating and background ventilation alongside the property context.
Investigate where needed
Inspect relevant signs of leaks, cold surfaces, damp or mould. Monitoring complements that investigation; it does not replace it.
Check what changes
Review subsequent readings after agreed action. No verified improvement outcome is established by this case.
The value of monitoring
See the rooms that need a closer look.
This case shows why room-level evidence matters: it helps define what to investigate and provides a starting point for later review.