## 4 Analysis of Results and Discussion
### Divergence of DA and DAP According to Window Size  
The first analysis addresses the divergence of the studied metrics with respect to the window size. Figure 4 shows the quantification of both metrics considering three window-to-wall ratios: 30%, 45%, and 60%. Odd columns represent bright rooms (B) with a high reflectance value of the inner surfaces, while even columns show dark rooms (D) according to the model described in Figure 4. First and second rows describe the calculation models with an illuminance threshold of 300 lx, while the third and last rows show rooms with a light requirement of 500 lx. Odd columns represent rooms located in Madrid, Spain and even columns show rooms in the London scenario. Finally, the first and second columns represent windows facing North and the third and fourth columns describe windows oriented to the South. The labels located in the left-top of the room sections describe the calculation model according to the parameters defined in Table 2.  
As can be observed in Figure 4, there is a significant divergence between the DA and DAP results, mainly in the back of the room. This divergence increases when the illuminance threshold is higher or when the access to natural light is poorer, such as the case of room models in London.  
The variation between DA\({}_{  
As deduced from Figure 5, the divergence between DA and DAP also varies depending on the window orientation. As expressed in the previous trial, the poorer the access to natural light, the higher the divergence produced between DAP and DA. Hence, as expected, windows facing North provide a higher difference between both metrics than those facing South. Considering the comparison between DA\({}_{300}\) and DAP\({}_{300[243-182]}\), the mean deviation for windows facing North is 8.0%, while this deviation decreases to 5.2% for openings oriented to South. This divergence between metrics increases for an illuminance threshold of 500 lx, with the mean deviation between DA\({}_{500}\) and DAP\({}_{500[243-182]}\) of 12.5% for openings oriented to North and 5.6% in the opposite case.  
Figure 5: Quantification of DA and DAP in the calculation models according to window orientation.  
As in the previous trial, the standard deviation is low for both cases, showing a value between 2.4 and 6.5%. Therefore, the difference between DA and DAP is almost constant, except in the case of the zone near the window, where both metrics tend to converge. In the case of the area close to the back of the room, the studied metrics diverge, except when the inner reflectance of the room is low, so it can lead to a higher energy consumption in the back of the room than expected with DA.  
Analyzing the DA and DAP values shown in the graphs of the room sections described in Figure 5, it can be concluded that DAP provides a more accurate calculation of the real use of daylight in seasonal use spaces for those cases where the orientation of the window is North. It also can be highlighted that other conditioning factors, such as a low reflectance of the inner surfaces or a small window size, increase the divergence between both metrics and therefore strength the suitability of DAP.