## 4 Discussion and Limitations  
The present study proposes an extension to the IFC-based bim2 sim framework to facilitate thermal comfort analysis. The study also introduces an extension to a simplified data set (i.e., TEASER [46]) used to provide the thermal comfort parameters, which are unavailable in the IFC standard. This extended data set is proposed in a manner similar to the original template and builds upon the existing dataset used in bim2 sim. This simplified set of thermal comfort parameters has certain limitations that users should consider. First, the template values provide only an estimate of the number of occupants in each thermal zone. We derived the clothing and activity parameters on the basis of assumed zone usage and with the support of existing standards. To better understand the parameters, we listed the decisions and fundamentals of each individual parameter. This listing enables further users of the templates to determine if the individual parameters are applicable to their case or if they require modification. The proposed parameters do not account for seasonal variations (or even current outdoor weather conditions also depending on day-/nighttime) regarding clothing, as this reflection would unnecessarily complicate the parameter set. For certain types of zones, such as offices and meeting rooms, seasonal clothing changes may not even be applicable. Further research should test either various sets of clothing parameters, including summer and winter attire, or a range of clothing parameters for each zone on the basis of outdoor temperature. The latter would adapt the dynamic clothing described in ASHRAE 55, but also consider minimum and maximum clothing requirements for specific zone types. We disregarded regional and cultural differences in clothing in the proposed templates. Since, even within the same culture, clothing standards in offices vary across businesses, the template values need to be adjusted to fit individual circumstances. Furthermore, the template considers only standardized body shapes and activity levels, represented by a body surface area of 1.8 m\({}^{2}\). Gender specifications are not included, nor are individuals who are shorter, taller, underweight, or overweight. To ensure the thermal comfort for underrepresented groups, noise should be introduced to clothing and activity parameters, allowing for the computation of thermal comfort to be repeated and evaluated for a wider range of occupant parameters. Since only standardized clothing has so far been evaluated, no skirts or dresses are included in the proposed clothing template. We presented a simplified set of parameters for the surrounding insulation. For the sake of simplicity, we suggest adding this value to the occupant's clothing parameter, even though they may not physically add up to the total clot value. Further evaluation is necessary. Additionally, the ISO 7730 PMV only accounts for clothing up to 2 clo, but our mixed furniture approach may result in higher clothing values. To remain within the range of ISO 7730 applicability, we have to limit the PMV to 2 clo, select an alternative comfort index, or expand and validate the ISO 7730 PMV approach for clo values exceeding 2. Similarly to the classic Fanger model, which omits occupant adaptive measures including clothing changes, we also disregard such variability. As predicting individual variations in clothing can be difficult, we suggest adding a clo value increment during colder seasons to account for additional clothing layers worn, and a decrement during warmer seasons to account for reduced clothing. While this approach is crude, it can limit clothing adaptability and assist in incorporating variability driven by human behavior into the simulation. As stated by [PERSON] et al. [16], occupants decide to adjust clothing or change the room's set point temperature. Furthermore, they state that developing generalized models for occupant behavior is not possible due to the diversity of occupants.