The constraint list has some redundancy. The first bullet mentions B.5 for capacity constraints, and the second bullet also references B.5 for flexible asset operational constraints. Since B.5 includes both capacity/availability constraints AND the other operational constraints for flexible assets, the second bullet is redundant. Consider either: (1) removing the second bullet entirely, or (2) clarifying that the first bullet only refers to capacity/availability (not all B.5 constraints), while the second bullet refers to the other operational constraints in B.5 (efficiency, input/output share constraints, etc.).

There's a discrepancy between the descriptive text and the actual objective function equation. The text (lines 320-323) states that the objective includes "financial impacts from policy scopes (taxes minus credits), costs of inter-regional trade, costs of pool-based trade", but the equation (lines 327-328) only includes "Core Asset Operational Costs from A.3 and B.4" and the penalty for unserved demand. Either the descriptive text should be updated to match the equation (removing mentions of scope policies, R2R trade, and pool trade), or the equation should include these terms.

Yeah, the equation is currently incomplete. We haven't added these features yet.

The flexible-asset objective contribution is presented without the outer summations over assets/regions/time. As written, it reads like a single (a,r,t) term rather than the contribution to the total objective (contrast with A.3 which includes \sum_{a}\sum_{r,t}). Either add the missing summations or explicitly state that this is the per-(a,r,t) term that is summed in the full objective.

In the flex-asset production case distinction, the set names use \mathbf{C}^{eff\_out}\_a / \mathbf{C}^{aux\_out}\_a. In LaTeX, \_ renders a literal underscore, so the intended subscript _a won’t render correctly. Use _a (unescaped) for subscripts (consistent with earlier set definitions like \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ out}_a).

In the B.4 objective expression, the summation index sets are written with \mathbf{C}^{...}\_a (e.g., \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ in}\_a, \mathbf{C}^{aux\_ out}\_a). In LaTeX, \_ renders a literal underscore, so these won’t typeset as the intended subscript _a. Use _a (unescaped) for subscripts, consistent with the set definitions earlier (\mathbf{C}^{eff\_ in}_a, etc.).

Math formatting is still inconsistent for names like eff\_in/eff\_out: earlier you use the spaced form noted at the top of the file (e.g., \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ in}_a, \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ out}_a), but here it switches to \mathbf{C}^{eff\_out}_a / \mathbf{C}^{eff\_in}_a. Given the mdbook rendering note, it’s safer to standardize on one form throughout (preferably the spaced version used elsewhere in this document).

The efficiency-constrained output definition equation uses \mathbf{C}^{eff\_out}\_a in the summation index. \_ renders a literal underscore, so the intended subscript ..._a will not render correctly. Use _a (unescaped) for subscripts.

The constraints list is currently redundant: the first bullet already references B.5, and the next bullet links to B.5 again. Consider making the first bullet reference only A.4 for capacity/availability, and keep a separate bullet for the remaining flexible-asset operational constraints (B.5), or otherwise remove the duplication.

In the decision-variable definitions, the set qualifiers use \_a (e.g., \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ in}\_a / \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ out}\_a). In LaTeX \_ renders a literal underscore, so this will not typeset the intended subscript ..._a. Use _a (unescaped) consistently, matching the set definitions earlier in the section.

The efficiency-constrained input definition equation uses \mathbf{C}^{eff\_ in}\_a in the summation index. \_ produces a literal underscore in LaTeX, so the subscript will be rendered incorrectly. Use _a (unescaped) for subscripts.