## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Annual Daylighting Quantity of Prayer Zone  
The data in Table 7 delineate an intricate interplay among various daylighting strategies employed in the men's prayer hall of a mosque in Lashari, Saudi Arabia, as evaluated through LEED v4.1, UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\), and average WPI level. However, none of the scenarios meet all benchmarks. Starting with multi-lateral lighting, which emerged as the most efficacious, garnering a perfect sDA\({}_{300\text{/}50\%}\) score of 100% and yielding a moderate UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\) of 71.1%, this was at the risk of over-illumination with 32.7 ASE\({}_{1000\text{,}250\text{h}}\), an average lux of 4196 near the lateral window and low WPI in the center of the prayer hall. Clerestory lighting, despite its perfect LEED4.1 score of 99.1%, and an efficient annual sunlight exposed by only 1.4%, is the only typology achieved for this metric; also, a higher UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\) indicates the high efficiency of daylight quantity. Skylight strategies, although scoring high in sDA\({}_{300\text{/}50\%}\) and minimum UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\) metrics, were marked by an exorbitant average illuminance of 6970 lux and high ASE\({}_{1000\text{,}250\text{h}}\), signaling high issues with glare and thermal comfort. The introduction of shade devices (SD) generally curtailed LEED4.1 scores but tended to reduce both glare and overheating, as evidenced by lower ASE\({}_{1000\text{,}250\text{h}}\) and UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\) metrics. Intriguingly, a hybrid approach combining all lighting methods and SD yielded the worst trade-off, minimizing UDI\({}_{300\text{-}3000\text{lux}}\) at 42.8% while increasing the ASE\({}_{1000\text{,}250\text{h}}\) to 76.8%, albeit at the highest lux level of 7631. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**EC States** & **Transmittance (Tvis) (\%)** & **Reflectance (\%)** & **SHGC (Unitless)** \\ \hline Transparent state & 59.7 & 15.9 & 0.41 \\ \hline Intermediate tinted 1 & 17.3 & 10.4 & 0.15 \\ \hline Intermediate tinted 2 & 5.5 & 10 & 0.11 \\ \hline fully tinted & 0.9 & 11.2 & 0.09 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: EC switchable glazing optical properties in each state. Figure 7: Spectral transmittance of EC glazing in its all states. Table 8 displays the analysis of daylighting performance in the women's prayer hall on the first level, which exhibits complex outcomes across LEEDv4.1, UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\), and average (WPI). Multi-lateral lighting stands out with an sDA\({}_{300\text{--}50\%}\) score of 100% and a UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\) of 73.3%, providing non-effective and balanced daylighting with the highest percentage of 41.7% ASE\({}_{1000\text{--}250\text{h}}\) due to the direct penetration of sunlight from the eastern opening. Clerestory lighting up performs with a 78% in UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\), and high sDA\({}_{300\text{--}50\%}\) score of 93.3%, and elimination of sun exposer with zero percent showing an optimum daylight quality while recording a perfect average illuminance of 686 lux. Skylight strategies, although commendable in sDA\({}_{300\text{--}50\%}\) and UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\) metrics, exhibit a lower ASE\({}_{1000\text{--}250\text{h}}\) value of 30% which is less than the men's prayer hall due to the use of internal glazing that is used for separation purposes. The incorporation of shade devices (SD) results in a reduced UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\) below the recommended value, implicating a loss of daylight quality in particular for clecstory and skylight typologies. Nevertheless, a hybrid typology that amalgamates all lighting types and SD does not achieve a balanced LEEDv4 score and UDI\({}_{300\text{--}3000\text{lux}}\), with a high WPI of 2809 lux, which indicates this inconsistency of combining these typologies to achieve the visual comfort.